




























^ A> 


• * A'' 'o • * - -O' 

* ♦ ♦ ^O aI'^ • * ' • ♦ Or ft ® aV 


O ^ 



: q. 


% & ^ 




l 9*^ ”> v' »iv. ^ .9^ .L*^'» > 

•o ’^f. » 

'.* ^ “.Wmw.* <9^ ‘.fi^IB^.’ .❖'■■*•. »V/mw ^c, 




. %■ ■'*•* (!>^ '°*‘* A*r ^ A <r '...* ,&^ 





O . ^ ^ 



;<t- ‘ nT "" * ^ 

A'^ ^ ♦tii* ^0^ % 

/ :lfcv V* :»: :'m:. •• 




/ ^9’'^ 

A’ '^•t^ '•.■;•* ^ *6 *rirr.* a 



^ 0^ f 

’ ..., V*^V , 

y^i^S^Sr. -e. A /.*4J:-. a’ 

- • 



•* / %. 



• o V • 

■■ V 

* °^W/ J>^%. '"•WM: 


^<0''*‘* ❖*’ V*™V <* *'•..‘* .&^ '^b *o?^* 

. \, 0°^ ^*1) (0^ •i^'- "^O 4,'^'’ .»< 




41^ O A 

« 0 VVV i 




•^Ao* 


'>- » 




V ; 




‘ ♦ 

* <Lr O * O 

^\V •*■'■ AT ^ '®»o® 4-?r ♦•♦I* aO ^ 

»► ^ av ^ A' oVJ38v\i* ♦ 

'V ■'•••* *Omi* 0^ ♦IfTTif ^ ^ (<^ 






V<< 



c 


; A Q, 


kT ^ 


* W' 

• <4-*^ C' *• 



* .. ^ ^••O® A'^ ♦•Vo® '"b 

^ A?' ♦ jA^i?A*o 

:^iAo 

0' 


A^ ^ • • •* ^o • k • «Ck /I 

C,^ ®0 -1*^^ *“ 

~ ^rt> o/Vs^SilL^* ^\y 4 • aS ♦ 

Or •>&ifTOC^'‘ ^cr ®fl>^r^*«k5l* ^ ^ 


=^* 4 O 



fS 


0^4 



^ •W2?4.’ 

o< !«^^*. '^oV^ .‘j^^»’ *^-<‘0^ 



♦ ♦ 



•^ *"*‘* ❖ ^•. 



* V 


• • A V 

*'•»’* <<r 





\ J" 

’^''^ ..... V'°“* 0^^ .•••. '\*'’'*V'^ .•■•. %.'*“* 0^^ .•■•. V' 





^ . 

^O *"’■ A" 

• Q.. 




^a‘^***A®’’ ^e.** 



iP-V 




.f.. A^ .*iRfl!Si!* fS. «. ►.'< 

* 4?^'V 4,'^'”^ V^^** <^'\- • 

'•••• A .. .. '•♦‘* ... V ' 

*^jK'/r7^p^* 'V. . A'' V. 


• ^ •’ 



A^' . ‘ " » ,0^ ♦ “ 3L * ♦ o 

4? v*iQ^^* »4 : '»bv . 


• % 4 ^ ^ 

♦ * 





•r ^ **^9^** .0^ ^ 

.4:» <‘/2^.*. 


0 ^ ^ 

% .<r .?^'-. > 

* 4?* 



• 4 o 





• A 

: 

• 'f*. 


• 4 .^ *■ rt'. 

• ••■ .V <?». “’* 4 P 
a'’ .'&i'. “V •• 

.V • jA «0 A.® '^r 






.4^ .y 


* 


A ^ O'- > o * A^i''''ir 

* a4.^ *-^ 1 ^.* v ^ -y^™. 4 .^’ '^A ’- . 

..•* 6«- '^< 9 *.*^^ a'' C-^'-*** 4 .^ . , '<*. 






p 





) 



4 







T, 


t 




I 


-'f 


1 









XHE 

DEMOCRATIC 

REVIEW 


VOL, 1 


JANUARY, 1921 


No. 1 


/ 7 ? 




O resist the further encroachment of the Fed¬ 
eral Government on the sovereignty of these 
States, and thus help to perpetuate this 
Republic as our Fathers established it; to 
oppose the further abridgement of individual rights, 
and thus help to preserve for ourselves and our 
posterity the inestimable blessings of civil liberty; 
to support our constitutions, both State and Fede¬ 
ral, in all of their provisions, and thus help to 
limit the power of those who are chosen to govern 
us; to contend against the progressive paternalism 
which is rapidly reducing us to a state of govern¬ 
mental pupilage, and thus help to restore that self- 
control without which no people can ever be cap¬ 
able of self-government; to defend the right of pri¬ 
vate property, and thus help ^ ^^^6ure. those who 
are industrious enough ^to "^i>rt, \ prudent 

enough to save, that they shall the fruits of 

their industry and their ^rudentej^ to combat 
Socialism in every form, and thus help to maintain 
an orderly government in our countiy,—are the 
principal purposes which this Magazine is intended 
to serve. 















J Kz3II 


CONTENTS 


Why This Magazine? 

Jefferson’s Statement of Democratic Principles. 
Our Recent Primary. 

The Lesson of the Presidential Election. 

A Word to Mr. Harding. 

The League of Nations. 

A Sample of Progressive Legislation. 

The Emergency Tariff Bill. 

The Returns of the Last Election. 

A Texas Progressive in Washington. 

Claude Kitchin’s Interview. 

The Independence of Texas. 

The Port Worth Declaration. 

Pay Your Poll Tax. 

To the Democrats of Texas. 






THE 

DEMOCRATIC 

REVIEW 

Owned, Controlled and Edited by Joseph W. Bailey 


Published Monthly. Dallas, Texas. $1.50 Per Annum. 


WHY THIS MAGAZINE? 

For almost a century every man in this country who called 
himself a Democrat believed in certain principles, definitely 
known and understood as the essentials of Democracy; but the 
men who have controlled our party during the last few years 
have completely abandoned those principles. Some of our leaders 
have publicly and repeatedly declared that our country has out¬ 
grown those principles; while others, not quite bold enough to 
make a public renunciation of them, have constantly supported 
measures in palpable conflict with them. This apostasy has 
passed unchallenged so long that the apostates have now assumed 
the aggressive, and are demanding of us who have kept the faith 
that we shall renounce our old principles and embrace their new 
‘‘isms.'' We must meet this issue; and we must meet it either 
by surrendering our convictions, or by fighting for them. Which 
shall it be? If we surrender, we might as well make up our 
minds at once to become socialists in fact, whatever we may be 
in name; if we fight, we can make the Democratic Party once 
more the true exponent of constitutional government in this 
country. As for me and my house, we intend to fight, and in 
fighting we shall need a publication which will circulate through¬ 
out all Texas to explain, defend, and advocate Democratic princi¬ 
ples; hence this Magazine. 


3 




THE DEMOCRACY OF JEFFERSON 


In his first inaugural address as President of the United 
States, Thomas Jefferson stated what he deemed 'The essential 
principles of our government,’' and I would regard the first issue 
of The Democratic Review as incomplete if it did not reproduce 
that historic statement, which cannot be recalled too frequently 
to the minds of our people. Mr. Jefferson said: 


“About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties 
which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is 
proper you should understand what I deem the essential prin¬ 
ciples of our Government, and consequently those which ought 
to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the 
narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general prin¬ 
ciple, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all 
men, of whatever State or persuasion, religious or political; 
peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, en¬ 
tangling alliances with none; the support of the State Govern¬ 
ments in all their rights, as the most competent adminis¬ 
tration for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks 
against anti-Republican tendencies; the preservation of the 
General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the 
sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous 
care of the right of election by the people—a mild and safe 
corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revo¬ 
lution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute 
acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital prin¬ 
ciple of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the 
vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well- 
disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the 
moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy 
of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public 
expense, that labor may be lightly burdened; the honest pay¬ 
ment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; 
encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its hand¬ 
maid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all 
abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; 
freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the pro¬ 
tection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries imparitally 
selected. These principles form the bright constellation which 
has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of 
revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and 
blood of our heroeal have been devoted to their attainment. 
They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic 
instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those 
we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error 
or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain 
the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.” 


4 



The men who had elected Jefferson to the Presidency accepted 
the above Declaration of Principles as their creed, and upon it 
organized the Democratic party. They did not, it is true, then 
call it the ‘‘Democratic party.^' The official name of their or¬ 
ganization was the “Democratic-Republican” party, but it was 
commonly called the “Republican” party until after the Federalist 
party had disappeared from American politics. As late as 1824, 
all of the candidates for the Presidency, including John Quincy 
Adams, a son of the rugged old Federalist, John Adams, were 
called “Republicans,” and the Democratic-Republican party did 
not formally drop the “Republican” part of its name until the 
election of 1828, in which Andrew Jackson was chosen President. 

But whether called the “Republican” party, as it was during 
the first twenty-eight years of its existence, or called the “Demo¬ 
cratic” party, as it has been through all the intervening years, 
our party stood pledged to “the essential principles of our gov¬ 
ernment” as Mr. Jefferson had stated them in that inaugural 
address. We once changed our name, but we did not change our 
principles, and none of our leaders ever urged us to do that until 
Woodrow Wilson became President. Then, and for the first time, 
they began to tell us that the country had outgrown our princi¬ 
ples. That is arrant nonsense. This country can no more out¬ 
grow the principles on which our Government was founded than 
the world can outgrow the law of gravitation, or mathematics 
can outgrow the multiplication table. Some things are immutable, 
and none are more immutable than the principles of a free Re¬ 
public. 


OUR RECENT PRIMARY 


Looking only to the face of the returns from the primary elec¬ 
tion held in this State on the 28th day of last August, any intelli¬ 
gent man would conclude that a majority of Texas Democrats are 
“progressive” rather than Democratic; but a careful study of 
those returns will lead him to a different conclusion. Taking the 
vote as it was counted, and making no allowance for irregularities 
or for illegal votes, Mr. NefFs majority was, in round numbers, 
70,000. That would seem decisive enough, but not when the vote 
is analyzed. 


5 




In analyzing the vote, the first fact to be considered is that at 
least 150,000 men who have heretofore participated in our Demo¬ 
cratic primaries refused to participate in the last one. This is, 
of course, an estimate; but it is rather under, than over, the true 
number, as will be made manifest by a comparison. In the Fergu- 
son-Ball contest of 1912 the total vote was between 440,000 and 
450,000, all cast by men, as women could not then vote. The total 
vote in our last primary was, in round numbers, 450,000; but as 
not less than 150,000 were cast by women, only 300,000 men could 
have voted. 

These figures make it plain that the man vote in our last pri¬ 
mary was 150,000 less than it was eight years ago, whereas it 
ought to have shown, and under normal political conditions would 
have shown, an increase to correspond with the increase in our 
population. How would those 150,000 men have voted if they had 
attended our last primary? It is certain that not more than 
10,000 of them would have voted for Mr. Neff, because it is well 
known that they remained out of the primary on account of their 
dissatisfaction with the very men and the very measures endorsed 
by Mr. Neff. Had those men gone into the primary, they would 
have converted Mr. Neff's majority of 70,000 into a majority of 
60,000 against him. 

A second fact to be considered in analyzing the vote is that 
very few of the women who were opposed to Mr. Neff voted in 
the primary. It is not, of course, possible to fix the number of 
those women with the same exactness that we can fix the number 
of men who did not vote; but 150,000 cannot be very far wrong 
either way, and I arrive at that number by a very simple process 
of reasoning. There were 300,000 men who voted in the primary, 
and it is fair to assume that one woman could have voted for each 
man who did vote. Therefore, with 300,000 women who could 
have voted and only 150,000 voting, it follows that the absentees 
numbered 150,000. If these women had voted, 140,000 out of the 
150,000 would have voted against Mr. Neff, thus converting his 
final majority of 70,000 into a majority of 60,000 against him. 

With these figures before him, no intelligent man can believe 
that the “Progressives” hold a majority in the Democratic party 
of Texas. Those figures cannot be successfully contested. No 
man doubts that 150,000 men who could have voted in our pri- 


6 


mary refused to do so; no man doubts that 150,000 women who 
could have qualified themselves to vote by paying their poll taxes 
failed to do so; nor can any man doubt how that 300,000 men and 
women would have voted if they had gone into the primary. Less 
than 25,000 of them would have voted for Mr. Neff, and he would 
have been defeated by an overwhelming majority. The result of 
the recent election has made it certain that the Democratic men 
who did not go into the last primary will go into the next one; 
and if our wives and daughters, our mothers and our sisters will 
help us by paying their poll taxes and voting in 1922 the correct¬ 
ness of what I have here set down will be fully demonstrated. 

Having shown that Mr. Neff owes his nomination to the fact 
that 300,000 Texas Democrats, for one reason or another, did not 
take part in our last primary, we could well afford to terminate 
our review of that campaign at this point; but it will be useful to 
go one step further and analyze the vote received by Mr. Neff. 
The total vote received by Mr. Neff was, in round numbers, 250,- 
000, of which not less than 150,000 were cast by women, leaving 
him only 115,000 votes cast by the men of Texas, and of that 
115,000 not less than 60,000—and perhaps 65,000—were cast by 
members of the labor unions, who voted in that election as a class 
and not as Democrats. Subtracting the minimum labor vote of 
60,000 from the 115,000 cast by men for Mr. Neff leaves him 
only 55,000 men votes outside of the labor unions, and that, under 
the circumstances, was a most pitiful showing. 

Actively supported by the Federal and State Administrations, 
with practically all of their officeholders; by the party organiza¬ 
tion, which not only used its influence for him, but in many in¬ 
stances abused its power in his behalf; by all of the morning 
newspapers published in our four largest cities, and by four-fifths 
of the weekly press; by all of the churches and all of the preach¬ 
ers who could be induced to take an active part in politics; and by 
every woman's organization in the State, social, religious and 
industrial—Mr. Neff could muster only 55,000 votes among the 
men of Texas outside of the labor unions, and that 55,000 votes 
included Socialists, semi-Socialists and political nondescripts of 
every kind. 

Mr. Neff's supporters also included all of the men who have 
renounced the doctrine of State Rights, and I speak conservatively 


7 


when I say that at least 110,000 of the 115,000 men who voted for 
him are not Democrats according to any definition of Democracy 
ever proposed or accepted in this country. On the other hand, out 
of the 170,000 men votes counted—and they did not represent all 
that were cast—for Mr. Neif’s opponent, at least 165,000 were 
cast by men who are Democrats of the strictest sect, and who 
have persevered in their faith without variableness or the shadow 
of turning. I intend no refiection on the integrity or the patriot¬ 
ism of the men who voted for Mr. Neff. I know that some of 
them are good men and good citizens; but a man may easily be a 
good man and a good citizen without being a good Democrat. 

The real Democrats of Texas can contemplate the result of 
that campaign with profund satisfaction. We lost the offices, but 
we saved our party. We united the men who believe in Democracy 
as it was taught to us by our fathers and as we have been teach¬ 
ing it to our children. While engaged in that work many prej¬ 
udices were conquered and many personal differences were com¬ 
posed. Thousands of men who had never before voted for our 
candidate for Governor espoused his candidacy with unflagging 
zeal; because they had come to realize that it was a contest be¬ 
tween the men who believe in, and the men who do not believe in, 
Democratic principles. The alignment then effected will endure, 
and no petty difference will ever again so divide and distract us 
as to jeopardize the cause which we devoutly believe is inseparably 
connected with the welfare of our State and the happiness of its 
people. 


THE LESSON OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 


The one lesson which the last presidential election plainly 
teaches on the face of the returns is that the Democratic party 
cannot hope to succeed by abandoning its principles. The thought¬ 
ful Democrats of this country knew that in the beginning, and 
they have constantly warned those in control of our party against 
the criminal folly of their course; but our warnings were dis¬ 
missed with the contemptuous statement that we were “reaction¬ 
aries.'' Our leaders seemed to assume that Democrats would 
support a “progressive" party with the same enthusiastic fidelity 
as they had always supported the Democratic party. That was 


8 




a poor compliment to pay us, because it could only have been ex¬ 
pected of men without political convictions. It was not reasonable 
to suppose that men who had been Democrats all their lives be¬ 
cause they believed in the principles of the Democratic party 
would renounce those principles and adopt new political theories 
at the behest of selfish and autocratic politicians. 

The result of the last election has taught every Democrat who 
is not incapable of learning that the Democratic party cannot be 
held together except in advocacy of Democratic principles, and 
the men who do not comprehend that truth must surrender their 
leadership to men who do comprehend it. I do not advise the 
proscription of the men who have brought upon our party the 
most overwhelming defeat ever encountered by any party in the 
history of our country, because I know that many of them 
acquiesced in the substitution of ‘"progressive” policies for Demo¬ 
cratic principles against their better judgment, and in order to 
avoid, as they thought, a disruption of the party. Those men 
are Democrats, and while I think they made a serious mistake, 
we need their co-operation in the work of rehabilitating the Demo¬ 
cratic party, and we should avoid alienating them by giving un¬ 
necessary offense. 

But while we believe the Democratic party can be, and ought 
to be, reunited without stopping to quarrel over the responsibility 
for our recent and overwhelming defeat, we must be absolutely 
candid with each other, and it must be understood that the party 
cannot be permanently reunited except on the basis of Demo¬ 
cratic principles. Even if an adherence to those principles made 
it impossible for us to succeed, it is still better that we should 
adhere to them; because an adherence to them had never brought 
upon us such a defeat as the abandonment of them has brought 
upon us. And, moreover, the Democratic party can be of in¬ 
finitely more service to our country as a minority party stead¬ 
fastly maintaining its principles than it could be as a majority 
party if it must sacrifice its principles to obtain its majority. It 
does not signify much to this country whether it is governed by a 
party calling itself Republican or a party calling itself Democratic; 
but it signifies very much to this country whether it is to be gov¬ 
erned by one set of principles rather than by another. 


9 


IT WILL BE A MISTAKE, MR. HARDING 


If Mr. Harding yields to those Republicans who favor the 
League of Nations, ^'with reservations,'' he will make a grave 
mistake, and justly subject himself to the charge that he has not 
executed the mandate of the American people in good faith. He 
must know that many of those ^‘Reservation-Republicans"—and, 
notably, those invited to confer with him first at Marion—never 
suggested any reservations until after thirty-seven Republican 
Senators had signed a formal statement that they would not vote 
to ratify the League as President Wilson first brought it back 
from France. With that declaration on the record, it was certain 
that the League of Nations would be rejected, unless some Re¬ 
publican Senators could be persuaded to stultify themselves; and 
regarding that as improbable, the reservations were invented for 
the purpose of procuring its ratification. I do not say that all of 
the Republicans who urged Republican Senators to vote for the 
League “with reservations" would have voted for it without reser¬ 
vations ; but I do unhesitatingly say that with many of them the 
reservations were intended to secure the ratification of the 
League rather than to perfect it. 

But even if I am mistaken about the motive which prompted 
those reservations, I am not mistaken in saying that they do not 
remove the fundamental objections to the League. Undoubtedly, 
some of the provisions in that document are more objectionable 
than others; but the American Electorate did not concern itself 
much about such details. They did not study that covenant 
article by article. Indeed, very few of them ever read it or knew 
anything about it except what they saw in the newspapers or 
heard in public speeches, and they did not believe even a sub¬ 
stantial part of what they had read or heard. They are opposed 
to the League of Nations; because they are opposed to any Euro¬ 
pean alliance, or to any international agreement which will in¬ 
volve us in European complications. That is what they intended 
to say by their votes, and if Mr. Harding is as wise as we think 
he is, and as we hope he is, he will so understand it. 

I would not, of course, assert that the League of Nations issue 
alone gave Mr. Harding his overwhelming majority, because I 
know that many questions combined to produce that result; but 


10 



no intelligent person doubts that it exerted a vastly greater in¬ 
fluence than any other single issue. It was the ‘‘solemn referen¬ 
dum'' urged by the President who negotiated the treaty and by 
the Democratic presidential nominee who made it the first of all 
the questions upon which he sought the favor of the American 
people. Being a Democrat, I have neither the right nor the in¬ 
clination to obtrude my advice on a Republican President; but 
being an American citizen, I have both the right and the inclina¬ 
tion to insist that every President, whether a Democrat or a 
Republican, shall remember the people, and keep their command¬ 
ments. 


THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


Politicians have made a strenuous effort to influence the minds 
of our people in favor of the League of Nations by telling us that 
in no other way can we assure the peace of the world. The men 
who say that may be sincere, and doubtless many of them are; 
but the sincere ones are grievously mistaken. It may be that the 
League of Nations would reduce the frequency of wars in the Old 
World; but it would increase their frequency with us. So long as 
we are not a member of the League we can decide for ourselves 
whether or not we will engage in any particular war; but if we 
join the League we will be compelled to engage in every war which 
occurs in Europe, Asia, or Africa, and it will increase rather than 
reduce the frequency of war with us. 

But even if the League of Nations would keep us out of war, 
and were the only means of doing so, I would not consent to it, 
because I would not support any proposal which will abate the 
sovereignty of the United States; or engage us in alliance to Euro¬ 
pean monarchies; or involve us in every disturbance which may 
occur in the Old World; or require us to send our boys across the 
seas to police the petty principalities whose quarrels do not touch 
the honor of our country or affect the happiness of our people. 
The League of Nations does all of that and, therefore, the objec¬ 
tions to it are insuperable. We can not afford to purchase peace 
at such a price. 

If the statesmen of our country will address themselves to 
that task, they can easily devise a plan which will keep the peace 


11 




of the world without surrendering any part of our sovereignty, 
or forming an alliance with foreign nations. A treaty made by 
all of the principal nations establishing a World's Court and pro¬ 
viding that all controversies between them should be referred to 
that court under an agreement that until the case had been de¬ 
cided neither nation would declare war or commit any act of war 
against the other, would avert hostilities in nine cases out of ten, 
and no human contrivance will ever do more than that. Such an 
arrangement would possess many advantages and no serious dis¬ 
advantages. 

In the first place, it would give cooling time, which is almost 
as useful in international controversies as it is in individual con¬ 
troversies; in the second place, it would require a dispassionate 
argument of every case, and in preparing for the argument the 
lawyers on each side would come to understand where the justice 
of the controversy rested; in the third place, that court, if made 
up of men whose character and intellect qualified them for service 
there, would be able to write an opinion so clear as to convince 
the contending nations in almost every case; and in the fourth 
place, such a court would gradually establish, through its de¬ 
cisions, a body of international law to which all nations would 
conform, and that would remove the cause of many wars. 

Some men object to the plan which I have proposed, because, 
they say, it leaves every nation free to obey or defy the decisions 
of that court. If that be a substantial objection, then my plan 
is amenable to it, because it is deliberately intended to leave that 
choice with every nation. A sovereign must always possess the 
right to decide every question for itself, at last, and a nation 
which covenants that right away ceases to be sovereign in the 
full sense of that word. One of the gravest objections to the 
League of Nations is that the nations entering into it must submit 
to the judgments of the League's council, and that is a submission 
which I would never agree to see my country make. 

But it is insisted that if nations are not compelled to obey the 
judgments of the court, the arrangement is nothing more than a 
mere arbitration—which, being fairly interpreted, means that a 
tribunal without power to enforce its decisions is not a court. 
The Congress of the United States does not subscribe to that 
view, for it did not confer the power to enforce its judgments on 


12 


one of the most important courts created by it. The Court of 
Claims decides many important questions arising between the 
Federal Government and its citizens, but it has no power to exe¬ 
cute any judgment which it may enter. But waiving these verbal 
niceties aside, I prefer to meet this objection in its essence, with¬ 
out regard to its form, for it distinctly presents their plan of mili¬ 
tary coercion against our plan of moral suasion. Without abating 
its sovereignty or compromising its self-respect, any nation may 
agree to have its controversy with another nation heard by an 
impartial tribunal, provided it reserves the right to accept or 
reject the decision when made; but no nation can enter into a 
binding agreement to supply soldiers to enforce against itself a 
decision made by a foreign tribunal without compromising its 
sovereignty and forfeiting its self-respect. 

These League advocates do not seem to know how efficacious 
arbitration has proved in many of the most serious international 
disputes. Without having examined the question recently, I am 
under the impression that no great nation in the world has ever 
agreed to an arbitration and then refused to abide by the award. 
I can now recall but two instances—both of them boundary 
disputes between South American countries—^where an arbitra¬ 
tion had been agreed to and the award was disregarded. My opin¬ 
ion is that whether we call it a court or a board of arbitration, 
the decisions of a tribunal such as I have above suggested would 
be respected by all nations, and would avert war just as often, if 
not more often, than the decisions of the council established by 
the League of Nations. The very fact that the court understood 
that its judgments could be defied would make it more careful to 
see that its judgments were so just that they would not be defied. 

I will illustrate my view by an example. If Mexico should 
bring suit against the United States for the recovery of Texas 
and other territory which formerly belonged to her, alleging that 
this country had instigated the secession of Texas from Mexico, 
and then upon one pretext or another had provoked a war in 
order to further appropriate some of her possessions, the United 
States would go into that court, make answer, and have the case 
tried. I have no shadow of doubt that the case would be decided 
in our favor, but neither have I any doubt that, if by any odd 
mischance, that court should decide the case against us, and order 


13 


the restoration of Texas and other States to Mexico, this country 
should, and would, refuse to obey the judgment. 


A SAMPLE OF PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION 


The Texas daily papers recently carried a telegraphic report 
from Georgetown, Texas, stating that ''a legal instrument, the 
first of its kind ever filed in the county, was recorded in the 
County Clerk’s office today.” The legal instrument referred to 
in that report was '‘Order No. 1 of the State Industrial Welfare 
Commission,” and it was filed in Williamson County for the pur¬ 
pose of serving notice on the citizens of that county that from 
and after February 7th it would be unlawful for them to pay 
women in certain specified employments less than $12.00 a week 
or permit them to work more than forty-eight hours a week. 

The mental processes of these Progressive Democrats are past 
finding out. One day they pass a law which accords to the women 
of Texas the right to govern our country, and the next day they 
pass a law which denies to those same women the right to make 
their own contracts for their own personal services. Surely any 
person qualified to direct the destiny of this great Republic is 
qualified to say how long she will work or the wages for which 
she will work. If these Progressive Statesmen were allowed to 
govern this country a few years longer, every business man would 
be compelled to keep a statute book on his desk, and every house¬ 
wife would be compelled to keep a statute book on her center 
table in order that they might know whether or not they are vio¬ 
lating the law when they make contracts with those who seek 
their employment. 

A limitation on the hours of women’s work, being a matter of 
physical endurance, does not necessarily have anything to do with 
her capacity to help run the Government; but to make it a crime 
for a woman who can not obtain employment at $12.00 a week 
to work for $10.00 a week is an abridgment of her liberty which 
can not be defended in any forum. If the work of women in 
these enumerated classes can be properly limited to eight hours, 
then by what logic is it possible to leave all other women to work 
without limitation. In many of those specified services the drud¬ 
gery is not greater, and in some of them not so great, as it is in 


14 




employments not specified. What then, will these legislators say 
to the women who are not thus protected ? They will say—-or at 
least if they know what they are saying, they must say—that 
they do not limit the right of all women to work, because there 
are employments which will not admit an eight hours' limitation— 
and that is a confession that they have made a law for the benefit 
of a special class. 


THE EMERGENCY TARIFF BILL 


When the Underwood Tariff Bill was pending in the House, I 
denounced it as unjust and undemocratic; because it placed all 
farm and ranch products on the free list, while it kept all manu¬ 
factured products on the dutiable list. No logic in this world can 
justify Congress in applying one rule to the factories of this 
country and another rule to our farms and ranches. If farm 
and ranch products are to be imported free of duty for the benefit 
of our cities and industrial centers, their manufactured products 
should be imported free of duty for the benefit of our farms and 
ranches. The justice of that proposition is so obvious that no 
man will deny it; and yet time-serving politicians vehemently as¬ 
sailed me because I asserted and insisted on it. They seemed to 
proceed on the theory that as the Democratic party had perpe¬ 
trated the injustice, I ought to conceal it from the people, if I 
could, and if I could not conceal it, then I ought to defend it; but 
that is not my conception of party duty. I knew when I spoke 
my mind on the subject that I would provoke the resentment of 
some men who had been my friends, and furnish a pretext for new 
outbursts on the part of those who had always been my enemies. 
But that did not deter me. 

Before that Tariff Law could work out its natural results the 
world war came, creating abnormal conditions and suspending, 
for a time, the normal operation of economic laws, with the result 
that we are just now beginning to feel the effect of the gross 
discrimination which was practiced against our farmers and 
ranchmen. Congress has now perceived it, and the House of 
Representatives has already passed an Emergency Tariff Bill to 
correct it. It was a curious spectacle to see Democrats who had 
helped to pass the Underwood-Simmons Bill—among them sev- 


15 




eral Texans—voting for a Republican bill to correct the mistake 
which a Democratic Congress had made. 

It is proper that I should say that neither Mr. Underwood nor 
Senator Simmons believed in the absurdity of free raw materials 
or free farm products, and had they been permitted to frame that 
Tariff Law according to their own judgment, it would have laid its 
duties without discrimination against any class, section, or indus¬ 
try. President Wilson, however, was obstinately insistent upon 
giving the manufacturers their raw materials free of duty, and on 
giving the people of our cities and industrial centers their farm 
products free of duty—a favor extended to them, of course, at 
the expense of our farmers and ranchmen. 


RETURNS FROM THE LAST ELECTION 


The following are the returns of the last election as canvassed 
at Austin and printed in the daily papers of the State: 

The presidential vote of various parties in Texas was: 
Democratic, 289,688; Republican, 115,640; Black and Tan, 

27,515; American, 47,669, and Socialist, 8,149. 

State Comptroller: Smith (D.) 308,588; Mulkey (R.) 

88,147; McCampbell (B. & T.) 27,041; Blakeslee (A.) 56,060; 
Matthews (S.) 7,723. 

State Treasurer: Baker (D.) 308,227; Sparenberg (R.) 

86,628; Cimbri (B. & T.) 26,640; Drozd (A.) 55,321; Keene 
(S.) 7,296. 

Commissioner General Land Office: Robinson (D.) 308,- 
531; Kingsberry (R.) 91,375; Boyd (B. & T.) 26,308; Riley 
(A.) 54,449; Scoggins (S.) 6,947. 

Attorney General: Cureton (D.) 309,407; Wharton (R.) 

88,852; Burkitt (B. & T.) 26,910; Dashiel (A.) 54,900; King 
(S.) 7,037. 

Superintendent Public Instruction: Blanton (D.) 309,834; 
Lindsay (R.) 87,667; Washington (B. & T.) 26,897; Alsup 
(A.) 53,403; Carlton (S.) 7,111. 

Commissioner of Agriculture: Terrell (D.) 310,790; Smith 
(R.) 88,508; Dickson (S.) 7,474. 

Railroad Commissioner: Earle B. Mayfield (D.) 307,806; 

Baum (R.) 88,374; Moore (A.) 54,416; Forbes (S.) 7,274. 

Associate Justice Supreme Court: Pierson (D.) 308,792; 

Harris (R.) 87,458; Short (A.) 53,341; Faulk (S.) 7,157. 

Judge Court of Criminal Appeals: Davidson (D.) 309,374; 
Starling (R.) 87,672; Berzett (S.) 7,837. 

The foregoing does not include the vote for Governor, as that 
vote is to be canvassed by the Legislature. The difference be- 


16 




tween the highest and the lowest vote cast for any State officer 
is only 2,984. The highest vote was cast for Land Commissioner, 
that being 310,790, and the lowest was cast for Railroad Commis¬ 
sioner, that being 307,806. But the difference between the vote 
for the Democratic Electors and the highest vote for any State 
nominee was 21,102 in favor of the latter. Who did that scratch¬ 
ing ? Certainly, not our friends. No sensible man would accuse 
them, for they would have been more apt to scratch the State than 
the National ticket. 


A TEXAS PROGRESSIVE AT WASHINGTON 


A '‘Progressive Democrat” from Texas was in Washington 
when Congress assembled on the first Monday of December, and 
he gave out an interview which was printed in a Washington 
newspaper as follows: 

“The Democrats are going to win the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives by a substantial majority in 1922, and in 1924 they 
will return to full control of Congress and win the Presidency. 

I make that flat statement because not only I believe it is 
true, but every one with whom I have talked in the past two 
weeks believes it is true. Republicans as well as Democrats 
admit it. I do not feel disposed to say anything unkind about 
the Republicans. No doubt before long we will begin hearing 
enough unkind things being said of the Republicans from op¬ 
posing factions within that party. That will be the beginning 
of Democratic success. The cry during the campaign was 
‘Let's have a change.’ Well, the people voted a change. In 
fact, no one, not even the most sanguine of the Republican 
leaders, expected such a vote. The people voted a change simply 
because the war, which turned the world topsy-turvey, left so 
many elements of the country dissatisfied with the party in 
power. Things are still topsy-turvey—politically, socially, in¬ 
dustrially and economically. The Republicans are going to find 
that straightening out all this is a monumental task. The Re¬ 
publicans deserve the support of a strong, constructive minority 
party, however, and no doubt they will receive it. 

“I fear, on the other hand, that the Republican party is not 
equal to the task, and the demand for a change will come two 
years hence—a change back to a progressive Democracy, with 
an unequaled record for constructive legislation and wise ad¬ 
ministration. This will be followed two years later by a com¬ 
plete return to power in Congress and in the executive branch 
of the government. There is no doubt about the steadfast 
Democracy of Texas.” 

Events cannot instruct some men. That progressive Demo- 


17 




crat does not understand that the unparalleled disaster which 
overtook the Democratic party on the second day of last Novem¬ 
ber was due to those ''progressive” tendencies which he assures us 
will triumph again in the next two years. A blind leader of the 
blind! Without knowing what brought the house down about his 
ears, he pokes his head out from under the debris and tells us 
that "there is no doubt about the steadfast Democracy of Texas.” 
That is perfectly true; but not as he meant it. The real Demo¬ 
crats of Texas are "steadfast;” but they are "steadfast” in the 
Democracy of their fathers, and they are through with the pseudo 
Democracy which is called "progressive.” They are more deter¬ 
mined today than they have been in many years to hold fast to 
their own name and adhere to their old principles. Their un¬ 
alterable resolution is to be Democrats, without any prefix, and 
as that word was understood by the men who founded the Demo¬ 
cratic party and who made its history worth knowing by heart. 
Men who need an adjective to describe their Democracy should 
join some other party. 


THE REACTION HAS COME 


With the inauguration of President Wilson a new test of 
Democratic loyalty was prescribed. It was no longer sufficient 
that a man had always cherished the principles and voted the 
ticket of the Democratic party. No man was recognized as a 
"deserving Democrat” unless he was "an original Wilson man” 
or had become a Wilson worshiper. If the President's advisers 
had been wise and honest men, they would have foreseen and they 
would have warned him against the unavoidable consequence of 
such a course. But the President's advisers were not wise enough 
to see, or else they were not honest enough to tell him that he was 
making a political disaster inevitable, and until the last election a 
worship of the President was a test of Democratic loyalty. Even 
the San Francisco Convention adopted a platform which saluted 
the President before it did the American people. Servile flattery 
could have gone no farther than that. 

But with the result of the last election has come the inevitable 
reaction, and the first conspicuous manifestation of it appeared in 
the newspapers of the country on the 9th of December. The Hon. 


18 




Claude Kitchin was the Democratic leader in the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives during the last Democratic Congress, and is a man of 
real ability. Mr. Kitchin is a genuine Democrat, and had chafed 
under the President's deliberate effort to divorce the Democratic 
party from its old principles, but he forebore the utterance of 
any protest for the sake of party harmony. Mr. Kitchin now 
realizes that the Democrats who voted an acquiescence in many 
things which their judgment condemned, in order to avoid party 
discord, made their sacrifice in vain. They preserved the harmony 
of the ^‘Wilson men," but they drove three million Democrats into 
voting the Republcian ticket as a protest against the abandonment 
of Democratic principles. Recognizing that the time had come 
when men should speak their minds, Mr. Kitchin gave out the 
following interview: 

“The whole intent and policy of his recommendations are 
to relieve the corporate interests and millionaires who, for the 
last four years, have plundered and profiteered upon the people 
to the extent of billions of dollars, of a billion and a half or 
two billions of dollars of taxes annually, and to place that 
amount upon the backs of the public that is the victim of such 
plunderers and profiteers. 

Would Be Issue for Democrats. 

“I cannot understand how any man who claims to have a 
single impulse for the masses, or who claims to be a Democrat, 
could make such recommendations—ibut I understand that 
neither Mr. Houston nor any of his friends make such claims 
for him. 

“If a Republican administration were to make such recom¬ 
mendations the Democrats in the House would not want a 
better issue. I have not time now to discuss in detail his 
recommendations or report. Perhaps I will have the oppor¬ 
tunity to do this in the next Congress, when the Republican 
administration recommends the same policy. 

“Have you ever thought about it—that the Secretaries of 
the Treasury under Mr. Wilson were the first ever to assume 
the authority to tell Congress what it ought to tax—^whether 
tariff or domestic taxation? All other Secretaries of the 
Treasury for the last twenty-five years were content to leave 
the question of what ought or ought not to be taxed and the 
rate to the judgment of Congress, where the Constitution 
leaves it. 

Hope for Improvement. 

“I trust the Republican Secretary of the Treasury under 
the next administration will have more confidence in the Re¬ 
publican Congress than our Democratic Secretaries under 


19 


Wilson’s administration have shown in Democratic Congresses 
and will not assume to tell Congress what it shall tax or not 
not tax and the rate of taxation, but will be willing to leave it 
where other Secretaries of the Treasury before the advent of 
the Wilson administration have left it—to the judgment of 
Congress, as the Constitution does—simply informing Congress 
regarding the condition of the finances of the government and 
the amount of money required to meet Government expenses. 

“If the Democratic party in Congress were to adopt the 
suggestions of Secretary Houston’s report, no Democratic can¬ 
didate hereafter Woud get anything like as many votes as 
Governor Cox did in the last election, and the Lord knows he 
got few enough. 

“I predict that in the next Congress in behalf of many 
Republican measures with respect to taxation the Republicans 
will cite Secretary Houston as well as the President as au¬ 
thority for their position.” 


THE INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS 


The convention which declared the independence of Texas met 
at Old Washington on the first day of March, 1836, and organized 
by electing Richard Ellis as president and H. S. Kimball as secre¬ 
tary. A committee of five was then appointed to prepare a Dec¬ 
laration of Independence, and instructed to ''report as speedily as 
possible.'' That committee was composed of George C. Childress, 
Edward Conrad, James Gaines, Bailey Hardeman and Collin Mc¬ 
Kinney. The next day the committee made its report, which was 
adopted unanimously, and without amendment, in less than an 
hour after George C. Childress had finished reading it to the con¬ 
vention. The names of the men who composed that memorable body 
ought to be held in perpetual reverence by the people of Texas, 
and I think it worth while to reprint them from time to time, in 
order that the men and women, as well as the boys and girls, of 
this State may remember them. Sixty delegates were elected, 
but two of them—John J. Lynn and James Kerr—did not partici¬ 
pate in the proceedings. The names of the other fifty-eight were: 


Badgett, J. B. 
Barnett, Thomas 
Barnett, G. W. 
Blount, S. W. 
Bower, J. W. 


Lattimer, A. H. 
Legrand, E. 0. 
Maverick, Samuel A. 
Menard, M. B. 
Menifee, William 


20 




Brigham, Asa 

McKinney, Collin 

Briscol, Andrew 

Moore, John W. 

Burton, J. W. 

Motley, W. 

Byron, J. S. D. 

Navarris, Josie Antonio 

Childress, George C. 

Parmer, Martin 

Clark, W., Jr. 

Pennington, S. 0. 

Collingsworth, James 

Potter, Robert 

Conrad, E. 

Power, James 

Caldwell, M. 

Roberts, John S. 

Coleman, R. M. 

Robertson, S. C. 

Crawford, W. C. 

Ruis, F. 

Ellis, Richard 

Rusk, Thomas J. 

Everitt, S. H. 

Scates, W. B. 

Fisher, John 

Smyth, George W. 

Fisher, S. Rhoads 

Stopp, Elijah 

Gaines, James 

Stewart, C. B. 

Gazeley, Thomas G. 

Swisher, J. G. 

Goodrich, B. B. 

Taylor, Charles S. 

Grimes, Jesse 

Thomas, David. 

Hamilton, R. 

Turner, John 

Hardin, A. B. 

Waller, Edwin 

Hardeman, Bailey 

West, Claiborne 

Houston, Sam 

Woods, James B. 

Lacy, W. D. 

Zavala, Lorenzo D. 


It will be perceived that the first two Senators from Texas— 
Houston and Rusk—were members of that convention. General 
Houston, however, was a delegate from Refugio County, and not 
from his home county. Many of the delegates were under thirty, 
and a decided majority of them were under forty. The oldest 
member, Collin McKinney, was seventy years old, and the young¬ 
est member, William Motley, was twenty-four years old. 

After adopting the Declaration of Independence the conven¬ 
tion proceeded with the other work before it. On the fourth day 
Sam Houston was made Commander in Chief of the army, and the 
following day an impatient delegate introduced a resolution de¬ 
claring that General Houston should proceed at once to the army 
or resign as its Commander in Chief. When the resolution was 
read Houston promptly took the floor and stated that he intended 


21 


“to set out the next morning to join the army and would be glad 
to have the company of the gentleman’’ who had introduced the 
resolution. The resolution was withdrawn, but the man who had 
introduced it did not accompany General Houston to the army. 
On March 16th the convention completed a Constitution for the 
Republic, and proceeded to elect a President and Vice-President for 
the Government ad interim. David G. Burnett was elected Presi¬ 
dent and Lorenzo D. Zavalla was elected Vice-President. It is 
worth noting that the first President of the Republic of Texas, 
David G. Burnett, was bom in New Jersey, and the last President 
of the Republic of Texas, Anson Jones, was born in Massachu¬ 
setts. Sectional prejudices did not influence the men who declared 
and achieved the independence of Texas. 


THE FORT WORTH DECLARATION 


In the next issue of The Democratic Review, I shall print the 
Declaration of Principles adopted by the Democratic mass meet¬ 
ing which was held at Fort Worth in August, 1919; and in each 
subsequent issue, I shall discuss a paragraph of that Declaration 
until the argument in behalf of the whole has been fully present¬ 
ed. To the real Democrats of this State, the principles there an¬ 
nounced are so fundamentally Democratic that they do not need 
either argument to support them, or elucidation to explain them; 
but, remembering that they were voted down in every precinct 
convention where our opponents had a majority last May, a dis¬ 
cussion of them seems necessary and proper. 


PAY YOUR POLL TAX 


The Democrats of this State—women as well as men—should 
pay their poll tax. It is very true that no general election will be 
held in this year; but the Legislature is to meet and no one can 
tell what constitutional amendments it may submit to a vote of 
the people. It is important, therefore, that every Democrat should 
be qualified to vote on any amendment submitted. Remember 
that your poll tax must be paid before the first day of February. 


22 






TO THE DEMOCRATS OF TEXAS 


I have established The Democratic Review for the sole pur¬ 
pose of aiding those who have made and will continue to make 
a determined effort to revive and apply the principles of the 
Democratic party in the administration of this Government; and 
it will not be used to promote any personal interest of my own. 
Indeed, I have no personal interest which it could be used to 
promote, because I desire no office, I crave no further distinc¬ 
tion, and the price of it precludes the possibility of any profit 
from it. When I first discussed this matter with my friends, 
they advised that I should organize a company so that if the 
project resulted in a financial failure, the loss would be so dis¬ 
tributed as to be inconsequential to each stockholder; but I could 
not see my way clear to follow that advice, for the reason that 
I preferred to meet the loss, if any, myself. But, while I have 
been unwilling to allow my friends to incur even a small risk in 
this enterprise, I feel that I have the right to call on the Demo¬ 
crats of Texas to help in securing subscriptions; and I make that 
call in order to extend the circulation, and not for the sake of the 
subscription price. I realize that unless this Magazine reaches a 
large number of people, it can not accomplish much good, and 
it can only serve the purpose for which it is intended through 
an extensive circulation. Every Democrat in Texas is as much 
interested in the success of this venture as I am, and I am con¬ 
fident that they will cordially co-operate with me. 


23 




IS*.* K ^ t- 


V » 




{ 




• . 

» 


»•« \ 




* W 


X- 

•r 

-t. 

<• 


\» .; •. 4 


*** 4 


i 


*T' ’ * '• 



'• *'Ki ■ . * 

* * ' ' ^ S, • ^ ^ \ ^ • • 




.•• *...• •TV •»- ' n : 


■?^ 



- X 
*. •« »*. 


v.-l 


<% 

• * .%!» 


Mv 


. .V* 

•-■•* '■> . . 




■ *r\'. ',,J. X' .- 

" ?•'■ ‘■^ \*K< 

.... ■ ,- V'? ;■ . 


^ ...t 


« •\ 
k.« ' 


;3 




vr , w ' 


•d . 




v». 


«• 




9 • a • 

.» »*•.*• A , 
* • • 

« > • • 

* - s 


..4 '* * 

< 


V/' *,.* • *. 

.: - '* 

■ *"• 

^' - ' ■ *- *' i 'i • v• "■•' '"-•■ 

. •*• ■■ ' ,.' . . .^ ■,' ^-/^.V, ■*> 

Ai . .. t*'^- 

" '»»’** •; V ' 4- - V * • . . . 


» 'a .' 


* . 


. ^ 


4f‘-. 


i?”. 




• 

'• >> * 


•^>-*:: - . - • :V', .: 


- . vV- ;. •• - «>« 

‘.:4> *\zj 


•' V 


I ’ 




? * . 


7' • : *■ ■* - ' . ^ 

■Jt (•;_ 

* • I •> . 

’ >. 


1 > 


e . 


' ■ 


’« V • 

s ^•. 




4 V. j . - ) * •»• ^ j#* • 

: .. •'-s-.'-.i'^'’" ■ • ■ . • ■"• • -. . ■ • . .'■.- ‘i ’ • 

* • ■^ ;ip^ ' •* *• :> • .». -• . I.'',' / i; '' .-.t - - • . ♦ i . .1 7 . - C.n* 

• '. * . * ■*» ^^ » . 'i; 'A ^ v' * ^ V »* - ■ « k # - < <- 

■/--■•'' ■• ‘ ' i'''■- ■ ■ - ■ 

■ - 'y-^'■:■■ .'■ .. • •'■'-I?#-., ■ ’ 


v.> .->.>5V/' V >. 


«* 


»> 


♦' 

V- 




^ ^ ** '•* •' • 4. 

▼ ^ ‘ t- ^,<s ' ♦ r'. ‘ 


U\..> ' 

*'»•!• 


■ y.^' - ■'^ 






,v.H* >-r- 


«.. # 




X 

i.;:v 


v- 

•'t ■'. 


. . ;:k 




■ •••?*■ 


■.-' -v, 



1 

V 


■ s.. *•>/• • •* .•: 


t v*v '*' "^ '<• • • V * ■•■> r • 

' ‘ •* ' ' •' , *’ 


. r 's’* >* 


J)k *" * ' ’• .'» • . 



J. <■-?? v;7f,- >*- ./ 


- • .«*■■'■ tr *.'>■ 

. .A '5 «* f-'.* • .x - •■ * •- 

• ;• > .* t-, S. > /.w' .* .«.!*• 




} ' 


• T/Vv 
•«< 



* i ■ * # • ..:, *.Ci • t-'/^ ^•. ^-- i.4» v«jf« • -.*• ‘4 • \ ^ 

^ ■ - /.- > 4 - • ^ ‘ . i. X * 'Jt*' 



-■•■•.■ «• ^ ■'‘^*‘’5 T-■'.L •' • • '•*■.* .• j - fl 

• ■, .. ,-. ' .;?-«->.■•.? •■< .j;, '.'. .; . <-.> r-t,^ \' " ' ^ 


y ■ .. , ,' v^;i ’*v : •>#' • - ;j^.‘ .x-; 

Cll’ I ■'■ i ^ 7*r ■ .'♦ • 

>’V» . * ' V* o*:^ - A'/'^' 

. .' 1 .-*;^ =>*'-- ’.y '•• •* . ^ 

-* • * . • • •^ .. I ■ • • - • • • 


•' • ""r 

-•• ■ > .,'•*■.'>• ■ •- ■'^' • • . 1^. • - 
• ■• - ' .. , - 


1* '-v. 


•*- * 

':• x,y : 


' •< 




✓ 

>•# 




^r-' 

* ; / '=:. - . ■ /- >■■- '• .'* . X -* 

>v^. ' - * - .2 X '< . ■■•.».-»*“ ’x “ ' •. - . ‘ 


:\im 

1 . r - ^ 


.'..., * • V - ^ ' --x" * - ‘ * ■■ ’ ‘ -'V 

. . L ^ .. . 

'.•- ». .«'- . • j ■ m • 


y^^\/ :• . !: .... . 

- • •*. * • . ' . . . •• •:. ^.•^ 


^ * 4I. ■*--*. *. ••., . ' • . * 

'• .,V, '^i .* . • ‘ 



J\ , • - 


X. 


X '4 


t -.p 

** V 




V ‘ 

‘■_v -irf .♦ 


w' .V ■ 't ' . - 

• . • .'^ ^ / « 
•v . nf ,^ . fc.. 



. • JH -X *ta« / *'• •« 


^3 <-^'^^ 


'’-Z -,.v 




» ■*' .* 


> V^v.u‘*fV« 

' * » ' * .%!.» ' *7». 

* ^ > A. • '• < X 

. 7s ' ^ ►‘-✓r**'”* ’t:^ 

' :>■*;■:*/; \, . yv’; .^- ,•’ ■.•• . •■ 


■ V " > 

‘ •7 '... ' •■■ J. 

t'* v. 


- »' , 

•. a * . .- 

<jk ' c#* 

vl.- 




.y 


. *-v • 


•a ^ a -• 


• 'K* • - ! • 

. '. I o- 


• V 


•%- »».'* ’ •• •• ' ’ . \ ^ . *• 

V ■ 'V" ■ 

: •.'■ ■‘ ^ jy*-. 

■i-'.-r,, •■< , W- 

• ^ *.' taA ••' “'V * 

. . ' - ^ -»ri . _*T 




..-I 

V.-s r > . 


: V' \ ^ ^ V 
• >♦ 


• : 

'• 4 . ✓ s^ ♦ 

►* 

i** 


* V 


'^'-r 


• -vVp? 


• 


» ' 

* A 

0 


': '^rC? 

• ...; 

' .y . * ^ 

-' * 


>%- ; 


>. 




*‘4-‘ 




» ^ * » 


s 




.»♦ . 

,•%:' ^ .-K, n 

* '• -w», , '•*. V \ 

• , - ' •» *»# -• % 

• ^':.rV''‘'.;: v::^:V 




« ’ ^ 


/#- 


XHE 

I DEMOCRATIC 
I REVIEW 


VOL, 1 


FEBRUARY, 1921 


No. 2 


O resist the further encroachment of the Fed¬ 
eral Government on the sovereignty of these 
States, and thus help to perpetuate this 
Republic as our Fathers established it; to 
oppose the further abridgement of individual rights, 
and thus help to preserve for ourselves and our 
posterity the inestimable blessings of civil liberty; 
to support our constitutions, both State and Fede¬ 
ral, in all of their provisions, and thus help to 
limit the power of those who are chosen to govern 
us; to contend against the progressive paternalism 
which is rapidly reducing us to a state of govern¬ 
mental pupilage, and thus help to restore that self- 
control without which no people can ever be cap¬ 
able of self-government; to defend the right of pri¬ 
vate property, and thus help to assure those who 
are industrious enough to work, and prudent 
enough to save, that they shall en^^me fWiits of 
their industry and their prudev^^to combat 
Socialism in every form, and thus ©maintain 
an orderly government in our country,—are the 
principal purposes which this Magazine Is intended 
to serve. 















CONTENTS 


A Declaration of Principles. 

The Court Erred. 

Mistakes of the Labor Unions. 

A Progressive View of Marriage. 
A Vicious Slander. 

The Vote for President. 


The Independence of Texas Achieved. 



THE 

DEMOCRATIC 

REVIEW 

Owned, Controlled and Edited by Joseph W. Bailey 
Published Monthly. Dallas, Texas. $1.50 Per Annum. 


A DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES. 

I. 

We believe in a representative democracy, as exemplified by 
this Republic, and we are opposed to the Initiative and Referen¬ 
dum, or any other measure calculated to convert this Govern¬ 
ment into a direct democracy. Recognizing, however, that con¬ 
stitutions are designed to confer power, or to limit power already 
conferred, on legislative bodies, we hold that no constitution, or 
any amendment to it, should be adopted except by the people. 
Every State in the Union now applies this principle to its own 
constitution, and we favor an amendment to the constitution of 
the United States requiring that hereafter all amendments to it 
shall be submitted to a direct vote of the people in the several 
States for ratification or rejection. 

II . 

We believe in a written constitution, and in a faithful obedi¬ 
ence to all of its provisions. We especially denounce, as fraught 
with the gravest danger, the enactment of legislation under the 
pretext that it is designed for a constitutional purpose, when 
the authors of it perfectly understand that its purpose is wholly 
unconstitutional. Such legislation is doubly vicious; because it 
is based upon a false pretense discreditable to Congress, and 
violates the constitution in a manner to prevent judicial correc¬ 
tion. 


8 




m. 


We believe in the wise arrangement which reserves to each 
State in this Union the exclusive right to regulate, so far as any 
government may properly regulate, the habits and occupations 
of its own people; and we are opposed to all measures which will, 
in purpose or effect, deprive these States of that right. 


IV. 

We believe that every State should have the right to pre¬ 
scribe the qualifications of its own voters, and we are opposed 
to the pending amendment of the Federal Constitution which 
denies to Texas the right to say who may and who may not 
vote for purely local officers. 


V. 

We denounce the growing tendency to regulate everything 
by law, and we demand that every American citizen shall be 
left as free to do for himself, and with his own, as is consistent 
with the peace and good order of society. 

VI. 

We denounce the growing extravagance of the Government, 
Federal, State and Municipal, as not only a useless waste of the 
wealth created by the labor of our people, but as the prolific 
mother of many governmental vices; and we demand a return 
to that simplicity and economy in our public affairs which our 
democratic fathers practiced in the most glorious era of this 
Republic. 

VII. 

We favor the efficient regulation of the railroads to the 
end that they shall be compelled to give every man fair service 
for fair pay, and all men the same service for the same pay 
under the same conditions; but we are utterly opposed to the 
governmental ownership and operation of them. For the United 
States to take over and operate the railroads of this country 
will not only violate a sound principle, by reducing this great 
Republic from a Sovereign to a mere common carrier for hire; 
but it will increase the employes of the Federal Government by 


4 


more than two million, and that number, together with their 
relatives and dependents, will control more than four million 
votes, thus rendering it almost impossible by any means short 
of a revolution to dislodge a party once in power. 

VIIL 

We believe in the right of private property, and we are un¬ 
compromisingly opposed to socialism. We hold that every man 
is entitled to enjoy all he can honestly earn, and we deny the 
right of any Government to take one man's property for the 
benefit of another man. We also believe, however, that the 
gradual absorption of all property in the hands of a favored 
few would not be less fatal to civilization and liberty in the end 
than the socialistic destruction of private property. We, there¬ 
fore, declare ourselves opposed to monopoly as well as socialism, 
and we pledge ourselves to resist both with unyielding determi¬ 
nation. 

IX. 

We believe that the constitution contains no guarantee 
more valuable than that which secures the freedom of speech; 
and we are opposed to any law which makes, or attempts to 
make, it a crime for a citizen of the United States to criticise 
the measures, or the administration of our government. To 
resist, or to advise others to resist, the due enforcement of the 
law should be an offense, and punished as such; but to urge the 
repeal of any law, or to contend that any given law ought not to 
have been enacted, or to test the validity of any law by an orderly 
procedure in the courts, is the birthright of every American 
freeman, and should not be denied or abridged. 

X. 

We hold that the first and highest duty of this Republic 
is to its own citizens; and we deny its right to expend our taxes 
or to sacrifice the lives of our sons in fighting wars which do not 
involve the honor of our country, or the welfare of our people. 
Our only duty to other countries is to deal justly with them, 
and that duty can be, and should be, performed without enter¬ 
ing into a permanent alliance with European monarchies, or 


5 


participating in European politics, or engaging in European 
struggles for territorial aggrandizement. 

XL 

We pledge ourselves to oppose all class legislation and all 
class domination in this Republic. Every special favor conferred 
on any class necessarily involves a discrimination against all 
other classes; and control by any one class necessarily means 
that the government will be administered for the benefit of that 
class without regard for the interest of all other classes. 

XII. 

We demand a practical as well as a theoretical separation 
of Church and State. The Church is a spiritual institution, 
designed to save human souls, while governments are temporal 
institutions, designed to protect human rights and liberties. The 
end which the State serves is not the end which the Church 
was intended to serve, and every effort to unite the two has 
resulted in a serious injury to both. 

The foregoing Declaration of Principles was adopted unani¬ 
mously by a democratic mass meeting held in Fort Worth on 
August 14, 1919, and the real Democrats of Texas made their 
campaign on it in the spring of 1920, intending, if successful, 
to offer it to the National Convention of our party as the basis 
of its platform. In order that the people themselves could pass 
on it, we offered it in practically every Precinct Convention held 
in Texas last May; but in every such meeting where the so-called 
‘'progressive Democrats** had a majority it was voted down. 
In the precinct where I then lived, I offered that declaration of 
principles, not as a substitute for the resolution offered by the 
“progressive** majority, but as an addition to it; and I pursued 
that course so that the “progressive Democrats** could not excuse 
their vote against it on the ground that they desired to “endorse 
the President.** 

As my motion proposed no change in their resolution endors¬ 
ing President Wilson, it presented only the question of endorsing 
also the principles of our party; but it was rejected. It is fair 
to say, however, that the adverse vote was made up largely of 


6 


women, who did not seem to understand the question. On this 
particular motion, the leader of the “Progressives,” just before 
the vote was taken, took the floor, and addressing himself to the 
women, told them to “vote this time just like you did before.” 
Those women knew nothing, and cared nothing, about the great 
principles of our party; they were voting to endorse “our beloved 
President, and keep Bailey from bringing whiskey back to 
Texas.” 

The principles declared by the Fort Worth Mass Meeting 
are the very fundamentals of Democracy, and we must renew our 
devotion to those principles, if we expect to preserve our party. 
Twice in our history our leaders have been foolish enough to 
think that they could abandon our principles and still succeed; 
but the result in both instances was overwhelming disaster. In 
1872, we nominated Horace Greeley, who made no pretense of 
being a Democrat, and he was defeated by such a majority that 
the episode became almost a jest. Having forgotten what hap¬ 
pened to us when we followed Horace Greley, our leaders, dur¬ 
ing the last eight years, have again tried the experiment of 
substituting “a new Democracy” for the Democracy of our 
fathers; and after the last election we found ourselves in the 
ditch, flat of our backs, with a majority of more than 7,000,000 
piled on us. Surely no sane Democrat will ask us to go any 
further in that direction, and when the time comes for us to 
make a new national platform, the Fort Worth Declaration of 
Principles will become the basis of it. 


THE COURT ERRED. 


The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that 
Congress may propose an amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States by a vote of two-thirds of a quorum in each 
House; and in doing so, it has grievously erred. That rule en¬ 
ables a minority of Congress to propose the most radical altera¬ 
tions in the very structure of our Government. The Senate con¬ 
sists of 96 members, of which 49 is a quorum, and two-thirds of 
49 is 33. The House of Representatives consists of 435 mem- 


7 




bers, of which 218 is a quorum, and two-thirds of 218 is 145. 
Therefore, under the decision of the Court, 33 Senators—which 
is but one more than one-third of the Senate—and 145 Repre¬ 
sentatives—which is exactly one-third of the House—voting in 
the affirmative can propose an amendment abolishing these 
States, and reducing them all to a territorial form of govern¬ 
ment. It does not satisfy me to say that one-third of the Con¬ 
gress will never do that. I am unwilling that one-third of the 
Congress shall have the power to do it. 

Without doubting, in the least, the patriotism of the Supreme 
Court, I must respectfully insist that the rule which they have 
laid down does not accord with the plain language of the Con¬ 
stitution. Article 5, which is the article the Court had under 
consideration, provides that: 

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall 
deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Con¬ 
stitution, etc. 

The only possible ambiguity in that language arises from 
the use of the words “both Houses” instead of the words “each 
House;” because that might lead some peculiar minds to argue 
that two-thirds of the combined vote of the two Houses is re¬ 
quired. But that view is so obviously unfounded that very few 
men have ever advanced it, and it has been almost universally 
understood that the vote is to be taken, separately, in each 
House. The Supreme Court, in the case which I am now dis¬ 
cussing, takes that view of it, without even referring to the 
other view. Our question turns, therefore, not on the meaning 
of “both Houses,” but on the meaning of “each House.” 

When we seek the meaning of any word, phrase, clause, 
or sentence in the Constitution, we should, of course, first 
examine that instrument itself; and if we find there exactly 
what it is necessary for us to know in order to form a correct 
opinion, we must accept it as controlling. It is not necessary to 
prolong this editorial by surveying both Houses, because what 
may be said, in this respect about either, applies to the other; 
and as the Constitution establishes the House of Representatives 
before it does the Senate, I will follow that order, and consider 
what constitutes the House of Representatives. In Section 2, 
Article 1, the Constitution provides: 


8 


The House of Representatives shall be composed of mem¬ 
bers chosen every second year by the people of the several 
States, etc. 

That provision is perfectly plain—as plain as the English 
language could make it—^and if the House of Representatives 
is ‘‘composed of members chosen every second year by the people 
of the Several States,'’ then the members so chosen must, in the 
very nature of things, constitute the House of Representatives; 
and when the Constitution refers to the House, it must mean 
the House as thus constituted, unless it is otherwise clearly in¬ 
dicated. That proposition is, to my mind, so self-evident that 
any argument in support of it would only tend to obscure it. The 
Court, in the opinion holding to the contrary, does not attempt 
to argue the question, but merely cites a case, decided two years 
ago, in which it was held that two-thirds of each House means 
only two-thirds of a quorum: and that decision was based on 
Section 5, of Article 1, which reads as follows: 

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns 
and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each 
shall constitute a quorum to do business; 

As that provision authorizes a quorum of each House “to do 
business,” the Court concludes that a quorum constitutes the 
House within the meaning of Article 5. i confess myself unable 
to comprehend the reasoning which can conduct any mind to 
such a conclusion. The very words of that provision, in my 
judgment, exclude the view which the Court has taken of it. 
It says that a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum 
to do business; but it does not say that a quorum shall consti¬ 
tute the House. Indeed, it completely negatives that idea; be¬ 
cause it defines a quorum as a maiority of the House. 1 am 
familiar with the axiom that the whole includes all of the parts, 
but I can not understand how any part can include the whole. 

The manifest purpose of the quorum provision was to facili¬ 
tate the public business by making a majority of the majority 
sufficient to pass all measures, except those with respect to 
which some other provision prescribes a different rule; and that 
is simply equivalent to saying that a quorum must transact 
the business of each House in conformity with every other pro¬ 
vision of the Constitution. A quorum had the right to debate, 
to amend, to refer, or to postpone the Eighteenth Amendment; 


9 


but when it came to the ‘‘business” of proposing that amend¬ 
ment to the several States, it was limited by that article of the 
Constitution which expressly requires two-thirds of the House, 
and not two-thirds of those “present.” 

The Constitution furnishes another, and to my mind, a con¬ 
clusive argument that Article 5 requires two-thirds of the full 
membership of both Houses, and not two-thirds of a mere 
quorum; because in five different sections it provides that a vote 
of two-thirds, instead of a majority, is necessary to decide cer¬ 
tain questions, and in two of the five it is expressly provided that 
two-thirds of those “present” shall be sufficient Those five 
sections are as follows: 

Article I. Section 3. The Senate shall have sole power 
to try all impeachments . . . And no person shall he convicted 
without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present. 

Article I. Section 5. Each House may determine the rules 
of its own proceedings, punish its members for disorderly be¬ 
havior, and, wdth the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a mem¬ 
ber. 

Article 1. Section 7. Every bill which shall have passed 
the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, ... be pre¬ 
sented to the President of the United States. If he approve, 
he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it .... to that 
House in wthich it shall have originated, who shall .... 
proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two- 
thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill it shall be sent 
. . . . to the other House, by which it shall likewise be re¬ 

considered, and if approved by two-thirds of‘that House, it 
shall become a law. 

Article II. Section 2. He (the President) shall have 
power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to 
make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present 
concur; etc. 

Article V. The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both 
Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to 
this (Constitution, etc. 

With these excerpts from the Constitution before me, I 
cannot escape the conclusion that the “two-thirds of both 
Houses” required for the submission of an amendment, means 
two-thirds of the full membership. It cannot be otherwise, un¬ 
less we believe that the convention which drafted our Constitu¬ 
tion intended for us to impute the same meaning to very differ¬ 
ent language. I cannot believe that; because I know the 
personnel and the history of that convention. The delegates 
to it possessed ability of the highest order; they applied them- 


10 


selves diligently for four months, lacking one week, to the work 
of writing that Constitution; every section of it was considered 
and reconsidered by committees and by sub-committees, which 
weighed and reweighed every word of it. 

Knowing the infinite care with which our Constitution was 
prepared, I cannot believe that in framing the most important 
article in it—the one under which all others may be superseded— 
the language used does not mean exactly what it says, and that 
this supremely important article is controlled by another article 
regulating a simple question of procedure. If the men who 
framed our Constitution had intended that two-thirds of both 
Houses should mean two-thirds of a quorum, and not two-thirds 
of the full membership, they would never have used the words, 
“two-thirds of the members present/^ in the impeachment article; 
nor would they have used the words, “provided two-thirds of 
the Senators present concur,” in respect to the ratification of 
treaties. 

It has not been asserted, and it will not be asserted, that 
the Senate could either try an impeachment or ratifiy a treaty 
without a quorum; and if “two-thirds of the Senate means only 
two-thirds of a quorum, then the language with respect to im¬ 
peachments and treaties was wholly unnecessary. Shall we 
say that the Constitution uses superfiuous words? We must say 
that, if we say that “two-thirds of each House” means only two- 
thirds of a quorum. I not only deny that those words are super¬ 
fiuous, but I insist that they were used with a discrimination, 
and for the express purpose of taking the cases in which they 
were used out of the general rule which requires us to consider 
each House of Congress as composed of its full membership. 


MISTAKES OF LABOR UNIONS. 


Fifteen years ago, practically every man in Texas was 
friendly to the labor unions; today, every man in Texas outside 
of the unions is hostile to them; and this radical change in the 
attitude of the public towards the labor unions has been pro¬ 
duced by a radical change in the attitude of the labor unions 
towards the public. Organized originally for the purpose of pro¬ 
tecting their members against the unreasonable greed of em- 


11 




ployers, the unions at first conducted their contests in that 
behalf with a decent regard for the rights of the public, and the 
public very naturally sympathized with them; but as the union 
purpose gradully evolved from one of self-protection into one 
of aggressive domination, they disregarded the public's rights, 
and consequently lost the public's sympathy. 

I will not take the time to specify all of the causes which 
have wrought the change in public sentiment towards the unions, 
but will briefly consider those which I think have been the most 
compelling; and they are, stated the reverse of their importance, 
the picket, the boycott, the sympathetic strike, and the inter¬ 
ference with men at work. Those are the methods which the 
unions now chiefly use to bring employers into subjection; but 
as each touches the public more or less, they have become more 
than a concern to the individuals against whom they are used. 

The picket consists of detailing a number of persons to walk 
to and fro in front of a proscribed place of business, denouncing 
it as “unfair," in order to deter intending patrons from enter¬ 
ing it. Aside from the palpable injury to the particular person 
or firm thus assailed such conduct is calculated to result in 
violence; and ought to be forbidden as tending to provoke a 
breach of the peace. No man of courage will tamely submit to 
be thus harrassed; and few men would censure a man so har- 
rassed, if he dispersed such a parade by force. 

The boycott is an organized effort to destroy the business 
of the man against whom it is directed; and it is so thoroughly 
un-American that men without any interest in the controversy 
feel incensed at its use. The union itself admits the severity 
of it; but claims that it is employed only in extreme cases. 
Every man has a right to withdraw his own patronage from 
any person or firm objectionable to him; but no number of men 
have a right to enter into a deliberate agreement to destroy the 
reputation, the business, or the property of any other man. 

The sympathetic strike is even worse than the picket and 
the boycott; because it is directed against those with whom the 
unions have no quarrel. It calls employees without any grievance 
away from their work in order to help other employees to win 
their strike. But why should the employees of A, with whom 
they may have no difference, walk out of his establishment on 


12 


account of a disagreement between B and his employees? To 
punish A for what B has done, when A had absolutely no con¬ 
nection with B*s conduct, is repugnant to every feeling of our 
nature. 

Interference with men who are anxious to work, is utterly 
indefensible. The right to work is one of the most inalienable 
rights of a man; it is second only to the right to life and liberty. 
Indeed, the right to live and the right to be free are barren 
rights, if a man can be denied the right to work and make his 
living. Men have a right to abandon any employment with 
which they are dissatisfied, but they have no right to prevent 
other men from taking the places which they have vacated; 
and when they resort to force to drive workers from their work 
they arouse the indignation of every good citizen. 

The constant demand for an increase in wages and reduc¬ 
tion in hours has recently prejudiced many men against the 
unions; but I did not specify that as one of '‘the most compelling 
causes,'* for the reason that up to a certain point, the public 
approved it. When the hours of labor were reduced from twelve 
to ten no objection was made, because there was a general im¬ 
pression that steady work for twelve hours might impair the 
vitality of the worker; and when wages were advanced beyond 
a bare living, the consent was universal, because all men know 
that no country can ever be great unless its laborers live in a 
fair degree of comfort. 

When the hours of labor was further reduced to eight, and 
wages still further increased, there was a general doubt as to 
the wisdom of it, because it was fully understood that the labor 
cost of producing, and consequently the selling price, of all com¬ 
modities would be enhanced. But the public generously took the 
position that it was better that labor should work too little, and 
get too much, than that it should work too much, and get too 
little. The unions have not, however, appreciated the public's 
generosity; they insist on maintaining war-wages in a time of 
peace, and the Federation of Labor, at its last annual conven¬ 
tion, served notice on us that they may soon demand a reduc¬ 
tion in time to a six-hour day. 

I understand, of course, that the labor leaders who read this 
editorial, if any of them take the trouble to do that, will resent 


13 


it, and their exasperation against me will be intensified; but the 
time has come in this country for plain speech on this labor 
question, and I intend to speak plainly on it, without stopping to 
ask whether what I say shall please or displease the extremists 
on either side. I am not unfriendly to the unions. Indeed, I 
am friendly to them so long as they obey the law, and do not 
trespass on the rights of other people; but I am unalterably 
opposed to any organization which defies the law, or perpetrates 
injustice against any class of my countrymen. The public will 
respect the rights of the labor unions, if the labor unions will 
respect the rights of the public; but not otherwise, and the 
sooner labor leaders understand that, the better it will be for 
their organization, as well as for our country. 


A “PROGRESSIVE” VIEW OF MARRIAGE. 


When the “Progressives” began their crusade in politics, I 
warned my good friends of the clergy—and I had more friends 
among them then than I have now—that after those politicians 
had completed their conquest of the political world, they would 
then endeavor to reorganize society. I knew that would happen; 
because I knew that when men have reached a condition of 
mind which moves them to denounce the best constitution which 
was ever written in the history of the world, and to decry the 
best government which has ever existed in the history of the 
world, they are afflicted with an insatiable appetite for change, 
which will never be satisfied until it has wrought a change in 
all things. If our Constitution, under which we have enjoyed an 
unexampled prosperity and freedom, is to be subverted because 
it is old, then why not the existing social order, which is older 
than our Constitution? 

The above question has been answered recently in one of 
the most “progressive” publications. The January number of 
HearsPs Magazine prints an article entiled, “What Will Take 
the Place of Marriage,” and while much of the matter which 
it contains is too gross for young women to read, that same mat¬ 
ter ought to be read by older women in order that they may 
better understand where these “progressive” ideas will lead us. 
To serve that purpose, I will lay before the readers of The Demo- 


14 




cratic Review extracts from the article in question. The first 
to which I desire to call the earnest attention of thoughtful 
men and good women is this: 

The modern man and the modern woman do not yet 
understand each other. The ancient customs do not fit. Mar¬ 
riage, as it is, creaks with age. 

There is the “progressive” argument in politics applied to 
the marriage relation. It has become withered by age, and, of 
course, it ought to be discarded. But what is the substitute pro¬ 
posed? The article explains that by certain instances which it 
relates. They are as follows: 

A young English captain, for example, returned fro-m the 
war. He found his wife no longer loved him. He has two 
children. For their sake he wants to keep up the home. But 
he finds himself in love again. The young woman whom he 
loves is a house-keeper for well-known and wealthy people. 

She is an honored member of her employer’s family. She has 
been with them since childhood. She shares their life. She 
is the pivot around which the household revolves. She tells 
the family of her love. She declares she does not want sup¬ 
port, nor does she want the young captain to desert his chil¬ 
dren, but says, nevertheless, she wants his love. As the wife 
of the young officer admittedly does not love him, she offers 
quite logically to take that wife’s place. The arrangement is 
accepted by all. 

Another case is that of a young actress. She fell in love 
with a married man. The man has grown children and his 
relation with his wife has long been merely that of an old 
friend. The young actress claims her right to motherhood. 

Men are scarce and she loves this man. Today she has two 
children. The man comes but rarely to see her. But she is 
content. She lives in a little cottage under her own name and 
supports herself and the children. She has never had another 
lover and does not want one. The neighbors respect her hon¬ 
esty and have learned to accept her. 

Here we have the naked proposal to substitute concubinage 
for marriage; to replace the husband and wife with the lover 
and the mistress. I do not, of course, for one moment think, 
and I would not say, that all of the men and women who call 
themselves “Progressives” would countenance the conduct as set 
forth, with approval, in the above quotation; but I am perfectly 
sure that sooner or later all of these so-called “progressive” men 
and women will be compelled either to countenance such con¬ 
duct, or to withdraw from the “progressive” party. “Progres- 


15 


sivism'’ is simply an incipient stage of Socialism, and Socialism 
not only tolerates, but encourages, a relation between the sexes, 
which, whether so intended or not, will ultimately destroy the 
marriage relation. Leaders may for a time conceal that tendency 
from their infatuated followers; but there must come a time 
when the truth will be revealed, and when that times comes, what 
I have here said will be justified. 


A VICIOUS SLANDER. 


When I made up my mind to publish The Democratic 
Review, I resolved that I would not use it to gratify my political 
resentments, and I shall adhere to that resolution. I feel, how¬ 
ever, that there can be no just complaint at me for complying 
with a request that I answer, through this magazine, a state¬ 
ment made about me. A few days ago I received the following 
letter: 

., Texas, January 14, 1921. 

Hon. J. W. Bailey, 

Dallas, Texas. 

My Dear Senator: 

Yesterday I heard an argument on the main street corner 
of our town between one of your friends and a lawyer of this 
place, which finally became so bitter that they almost had a 
fight. The lawyer said that when you went out of the Senate 
you settled at Washington to practice law for the railroads, 
under a contract that they should pay you $50,000 a year, and 
he also said that the railroads were paying you that large sum 
for what you had done for them while you were in the Senate. 

Your friend denied that statement, and the lawyer said he 
knew that it was the truth. I have always been a friend of 
yours, and I want you to answer this lawyer’s charge in your 
paper; but please do not mention my name, as I do not want to 
get into any dispute. 

Your friend. 


I have printed the letter from my friend in full; but, com¬ 
plying with his request not to mention his name, I have omitted 
his signature, and also the town from which his letter was writ¬ 
ten, which I think will be sufficient to keep him from “getting 
into a dispute.” 

That lawyer’s statement, related in the above letter, is 
utterly destitute of the truth. I did not settle at Washington 


16 






to practice law under any contract with the railroads, and dur¬ 
ing the eight years I was there I did not receive a single fee 
from any railroad or from the president or other official of any 
railroad. I did not represent the railroads in the courts, or at 
any department of the Government, and did not receive one 
penny from them. I have often said in public speeches, and it 
will not be amiss for me to repeat it here, that my enemies un¬ 
consciously pay me a great compliment by telling these lies 
about me; for it demonstrates that they can only criticise my 
public service by misrepresenting it. 


THE VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. 


In order that its readers may have the information as soon 
as possible, and in order, also, that it may provide a convenient 
reference for those who lay it aside. The Democratic Review 
intends to print the returns from each primary election in this 
State, and each presidential election in the United States, as 
soon as the results are accurately known. In accordance with 
that policy, I expected to print the vote for President, by States, 
in the last issue; but was surprised to find, when I came to pre¬ 
pare the matter, that no reliable table had been compiled up to 
the 3rd of January, although two full months had passed since 
the election. 

On the 9th of January the Associated Press gave out the 
table which I print below, and I assume that it is reasonably 
accurate. I note, however, that it does not correspond exactly 
with the vote in this State, as announced by our State Canvass¬ 
ing Board. This table gives the Cox vote as 288,757, and the 
Harding vote as 114,269, whereas the same vote as announced 
from Austin was 289,688 and 115,644. These discrepancies, 
however, are so slight, compared with the total vote, that the 
table may be accepted as reasonably accurate. This table gives 
only the vote for Harding, Cox, and Debs, ignoring the three or 
four inconsequential candidates. It is worth the while of a 
Texan, however, to remember that the American Party polled 
47,495 votes and the Black and Tan party 27,247 votes in our 
State. 


17 




VOTE BY STATES 


The popular vote for President, 1920, follows: 



Harding, Rep. 

Cox, Dem. 

Debs, Soc. 

Alabama . 

. 74,690 

163,254 

2,363 

Arizona . 

. 37,016 

29,546 

216 

Arkansas . 

. 69,892 

105,684 

5,074 

California . 

. 624,992 

229,191 

64,076 

Colorado . 

. 173,248 

104,936 

8.046 

Connecticut . 

. 229,238 

120,721 

10,335 

Delaware . 

. 52,858 

39,898 

1,002 

Florida . 

. 44,835 

90,515 

5,189 

Georgia . 

. 41,089 

107,162 

465 

Idaho . 

. 88,321 

46,576 

38 

Illinois . 

. 1,420,480 

534,394 

74,747 

Indiana . 

. 696,370 

511,364 

24,703 

Iowa . 

. 634,674 

227,921 

16,981 

Kansas . 

. 369,268 

■ 185,464 

15,511 

Kentucky . 

. 452,480 

450,497 

6,392 

Louisiana . 

. 38,538 

87,519 


Maine . 

. 136,355 

58,961 

2,214 

Maryland . 

. 236,117 

180,626 

8,876 

Massachusetts . 

. 681,153 

276,691 

32,267 

Michigan . 

. 762,865 

233,460 

28,947 

Minnesota . 

.. 519,421 

142,994 

56,106 

Mississippi . 

. 11,644 

69,291 

1,686 

Missouri . 

. 727,162 

574,799 

20,242 

Montana . 

. 109,430 

57,334 


Nebraska . 

.. 251,093 

119,608 

9,600 

Nevada . 

. 15,432 

9,803 

1,858 

New Hampshine . 

. 95,196 

62,662 

1,234 

New Jersey . 

. 611,541 

256,887 

27,141 

New Mexico . 

. 57,634 

46,671 


New York . 

. 1,868,411 

780,774 

203,114 

North Carolina . 

. 232,848 

305,447 

446 

North Dakota . 

. 160,072 

37,422 

8,282 

Ohio . 

. 1,182,022 

780,037 

57,147 

Oklahoma . 

. 243,415 

215,521 

25,638 

Oregon . 

. 143,592 

80,060 

9,801 

Pennsylvania . 

. 1,218,215 

503,202 

70,021 

Rhode Island . 

. 107,463 

56,062 

4,361 

South Carolina . 

. 2,610 

62,933 

28 

South Dakota . 

. 109,874 

35,938 


Tennessee . 

. 219,770 

209,099 

2,239 

Texas . 

. 114,269 

288,767 

8,121 

Utah . 

. 81,555 

56,639 

3,159 

Vermont . 

. 68,212 

20,919 


Virginia . 

. 87,458 

141,670 

807 

Washington . 

. 223,137 

84,298 

8,013 

West Virginia . 

. 282,007 

220,789 

5,618 

Wisconsin . 

. 498,576 

113,422 

80,635 

Wyoming . 

. 35,001 

17,420 

1,234 

Totals. 

.16,141,629 

9,139,866 

914,869 


18 



























































THE INDEPENDENCE OF TEXAS ACHIEVED. 


In its last issue, The Democratic Review printed an account 
of the convention which declared the independence of Texas; 
and it seems proper to follow that with an account of the battle 
which made our independence an established fact. On the night 
of April 20, 1836, the Mexican army and the army of Texas 
patriots camped almost in sight of each other; and the next 
morning the Commander in Chief addressed himself promptly 
to the work of putting his men in readiness for the coming and 
decisive battle. 

At four o'clock in the afternoon, the command, “Forward," 
was given, and the little army of devoted patriots were soon in 
motion. Divided into four divisions, each was assigned its part, 
and each performed the part assigned to it with courage and 
success. To the music of a single fife and drum, playing “Will 
You Come to The Bower," they dashed on their enemies, with the 
cries, “Remember Goliad," “Remember the Alamo." Numbers 
considered, history does not record anything to equal the execu¬ 
tion of their work. 

In less than twenty minutes the battle was over, and such 
of the Mexican army as had not been killed or wounded was in a 
precipitate flight. Wooten, in his History of Texas, gives the 
number of the Texas army as 743, with their loss as six killed 
and twenty-five wounded; Yoakum gives the killed and wounded 
the same, but gives the number of the Texas army as 783. 
Neither Wooten nor Yoakum attempt to give the exact number 
of the Mexican army; but they both give the number of Mexi¬ 
cans killed as 630, and the number wounded as 280, with 730 
taken prisoners, which means that the Texas troops killed and 
wounded more than their own number, and, besides took prison¬ 
ers almost equal to their number. 

The Texans killed were. Dr. William Motley, who had been 
a member—and the youngest member—of the convention which 
declared our independence; Lieutenant J. C. Haley, of the 2nd 
Regiment; Second Lieutenant George A. Lamb, of the 2nd Regi¬ 
ment; First Sergeant Thomas P. Fowl, 2nd Regiment; Private 
Lemuel Blakely, 1st Regiment; Private- Cooper, 1st Regi¬ 

ment; and Private A. R. Stevens, 1st Regiment. It will be ob- 


19 




served that the officers who were killed all belonged to the 2nd 
Regiment, while all of the privates who were killed belonged to 
the 1st Regiment. 

The Mexicans who were not captured immediately all fled 
towards Vince’s Bridge, which had been cut, under Houston’s 
order, before the battle began. It is said that Deaf Smith, who 
had destroyed the bridge, after reporting that fact to General 
Houston, threw himself into the fight with such a grim deter¬ 
mination that after he had broken his own sword, he took the 
sword of a Mexican whom he had killed, and proceeded to kill 
more Mexicans with it. Unable to escape by way of Vince’s 
Bridge, the Mexicans scattered themselves through the marshes, 
where some were drowned, and others were captured. Among 
those captured was Santa Anna, who called himself the ‘‘Presi¬ 
dent,” but was really the Dictator of Mexico, and was in personal 
command of his army at San Jacinto. 

While a prisoner, Santa Anna made two treaties with the 
Republic of Texas—one public and one secret. The public treaty 
stipulated for a cessation of hostilities, etc.; the secret treaty 
stipulated that he wouid order his troops to leave Texas, and 
exert his good offices to secure a recognition of Texas indepen 
dence. That secret treaty also stipulated that the Republic of 
Texas would provide for the prompt return of Santa Anna to 
Mexico; but notwithstanding that stipulation he was detained 
as prisoner for several months. Mirabeau B. Lamar and others 
insisted upon ignoring the promise that he should be returned 
to Mexico, and demanded that he should be executed; David G. 
Burnett, the President ad interim, General Houston, and others 
insisted that the good faith of the new Republic had been pledged, 
and should be kept inviolate. The latter view finally prevailed, 
and the wisdom of it was soon recognized by the most thoughtful 
men in Texas. 

No man at the battle of San Jacinto exhibited a more superb 
courage than General Houston himself. He was one of the 
twenty-five wounded, receiving his wound when only a tew yards 
from the enemy’s line, and while leading the infantry charge. 
Texas testified her grateful appreciation of his service by choos¬ 
ing him the first President of the Republic. Under the Constitu¬ 
tion, he could not succeed himself; but he was chosen again to 


20 


succeed Mirabeau B. Lamar, who had succeded him. When Texas 
was admitted as a State into the Federal Union, General Hous¬ 
ton was chosen as one of her first Senators, his colleague being 
Thoms J. Rusk, who was second to him in command at San 
Jacinto. General Rusk commited suicide while still a Senator 
from Texas, and thus escaped some of the political vicissitudes 
which General Houston encountered. 

Towards the expiration of General Houston's second full 
term, it became manifest that, on account of certain differences 
with his constituents, he could not be re-elected; and he became 
a candidate for Governor. In order to insure his defeat, the 
politicians called a State Democratic Convention, tHe first one 
ever held in Texas, at which they nominated the Hon. Hardin 
R. Runnels, who was then Governor. Houston, however, became 
a candidate, and after an exciting campaign, was defeated, re¬ 
ceiving 23,628, against 32,552 cast for Runnels. In 1859, Hous¬ 
ton again became a candidate. Governor Runnels again being his 
opponent, and in that election the result was reversed, Houston 
receiving 36,257 votes against 27,500 for Runnels. 

Then came the great tragedy of his career. On March 14. 
1861, the Secession Convention of Texas adopted an ordinance 
requiring all State officers to take the oath of allegiance to the 
new Government, and Houston refused to comply, for which he 
was deposed, and retired to his home in Huntsville, where, on 
July 26th, 1863, he died, as much hated by the people of the 
State as he had once been loved by them. But that estrangement 
has long since passed away, and his name is now the one most 
revered by our people. The affectionate pride with which the 
memory of Houston is now cherished by the people of Texas 
testifies that the man who has served them, though they may, 
for a time, turn from him, will yet receive from them the honor 
which his services deserve. 


21 


TO THE DEMOCRATS OF TEXAS. 


I have established The Democratic Review for the sole pur¬ 
pose of aiding those who have made and will continue to make 
a determined effort to revive and apply the principles of the 
Democratic party in the administration of this Government; and 
it will not be used to promote any personal interest of my own. 
Indeed, I have no personal interest which it could be used to 
promote, because I desire no office, I crave no further distinc¬ 
tion, and the price of it precludes the possibility of any profit 
from it. When I first discussed this matter with my friends, 
they advised that I should organize a company so that if the 
project resulted in a financial failure, the loss would be so dis¬ 
tributed as to be inconsequential to each stockholder; but I could 
not see my way clear to follow that advice, for the reason that 
I preferred to meet the loss, if any, myself. But, while I have 
been unwilling to allow my friends to incur ever a small risk in 
this enterprise, I feel that I have the right to call on the Demo¬ 
crats of Texas to help in securing subscriptions; and I make that 
call in order to extend the circulation, and not for the sake of the 
subscription price. I realize that unless this Magazine reaches a 
large number of people, it can not accomplish much good, and 
it can only serve the purpose for which it is intended through 
an extensive circulation. Every Democrat in Texas is as much 
interested in the success of this venture as I am, and I am con¬ 
fident that they will cordially co-operate with me. 


22 





Service 

The 






^ More than twenty-four years ago “Lord’s" 
was established in Fort Worth. We have 
always insisted upon the highest type of 
i i efficiency and skill in our attendants. 

<|» This has made possible the super-service 
that prevails here, and assures you of the 
greatest excellence in your glasses. 

\ \ Make this your service. 

LORD’S 

J 704 Main Ft. Worth 

Established 1896 


Department Store 

Fort Worth, Texas 


Efficient Mail Order 
Service 

by special shoppers who’s main 
thought must be to properly fill all 
letter orders and ship same day 
X received. 



L 


Made Good Since 1890. 

The 

Casey-Swasey 
Cigar Co. 

Distributors 
Fort Worth, Texas 


KEEP YOUR CLOTHES GLEAN 


Lamar 5864 Lamar 5865 


American Dyeing & Dry 
Cleaning Go, 


t 


Lalles Work a Spoclally 

306 A-306 0 Throckmorton St. 
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 


I ED. STEWART, Pros. A. E. HI6HN0TE, Seo'y 



























Consumers 
Sand and 
Gravel 
Co. 


♦ ♦ ♦ 


Howard Mann 


♦ ♦ ♦ 


WACO, TEXAS 





Tom C. Bradley Lloyd H. Burns 

A. W. Christian Durwood H. Brabley 

Sol Bordan 


Bradley, Barns, Christian 
& Bradley 

ATTORNEYS AT UW 


Phone Lamar 550 and 551 


W. T. Waggoner Building 

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 





Slay, Simon & Smith 
Attarn^gB-at-iCIaui 
















Beautiful in 
Home Furnishings 

A wonderful stock of every 
thing needed in the home. 

Living Room Furniture 
Dining Room Furniture 
Bed Room Furniture 



See our Cottage—it’s a revelation. 
A full line of Office Furniture. 


Poindexter Furniture & Carpet Co. 


First and Houston Streets 



FORT WORTH, TEXAS 





An institution catering 
to the public. Known 
as the San Antonio 
home of all Texas. 


PBACTY TYRRELL. MaMi«r 







































t 


lliolalius %otrl 



w 


One of the Truly Great 
Hotels of America 

R. B. ELLIFRITZ 

Manager and Director 

Dallas,Texas 


I 


■» < ■ ■ ! ■ ■ ! ■ ■ ! ■ » »■t’ 4 <■ 8' ■ ! ' ■ > ■ ■ ! ■ » »■»» < ■ ■ > ■ H »4>4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4*4»4»4*»»4*4*4»4>4>4»^ 






















Assets Over Ten Million Dollars 

Great 

Southern Life Insurance 
Company 

Dallas 


Houston 


‘'Texas' Hundred Millon Dollar Company" 


Annual Statement 


December 31, 1920 


ADMITTED ASSETS 


LIABILITIES 


First Mortgage Loans. $5,929,277.39 

Real Estate 395,426.64 

Policy Loans (within reserve) 1,733,607.61 

Liberty Bonds. 887,050.00 

Other Bonds . 270,000.00 

CJash on Deposit. 657,238.49 

All Other Assets. 475,909.49 


Policy Reserves and^ all other 

Liabilities. $9,584,510.39 

Surplus to Policyholders includ¬ 
ing Capital Stock, $600,000,- 
00. 763,999.23 


TOTAL $10,348,509.62 


TOTAL. $10,348,509.62 


Insurance in Force - 


$105,573,682.00 


Has Never Issued a Policy with 
Double Indemnity 
Premium Reduction 
Coupons 

Group Insurance 

(No Frills or Trimmings) 


Issues Only 

Plain Simple Contracts 

Full Reserve Values (Cash, Paid-up 

or Extended Insurance.) 

Full Total Disability Benefits 
Monthly Income Payments to Bene¬ 
ficiaries in all Approved Forms. 


We Offer No Inducements to Agents Except Prompt 
Service and Fair Treatment. 

O. S. CARLTON, - - President E. P. GREENWOOD, Vice-President 

HOUSTON DALLAS 


Insurance in Force Over One Hundred Million Dollars ; 
































Life Insurance 

—A Duty 



HE civilization of a Nation may be measured 
by the respect and honor the individuals of 
that Nation pay to their homes. 

The Home is the greatest single molder of 
character, around which our civilization is 
built, and it must be instilled into the child at the 
hearthside by the Mothers of our land. 

Our complicated industrial life today is tending more 
and more to break up the home ties. You do not 
want your son or daughter to grow up among strang¬ 
ers and amid the rangle of unsettled labor strife, 
without the advantage of a mother’s care or proper 
education - and yet, have you adequately fortified 
your home against just this condition? 

Life Insurance is not a luxury of the rich. It has 
come within the means of every man to provide for 
his family after death. A few dollars each month 
now may mean the life and happiness of your wife, 
son or daughter in after years. 

The UNITED FIDELITY acknowledges its respon¬ 
sibility to the citizenship of Texas upon its entry into 
the Life Insurance Field; its officers and directors 
are cognizant of the duties and responsibilities im¬ 
posed upon them, and pledge the maximum of their 
efforts and ability to give you the best life insurance 
and a full measure of service at all times. 

United Fidelity 
Life Insurance Company 

Temporary Officos-12th Floor Dallas County State Bank Building. 

Dallas, Texas 

D. E. Waggoner, President. 

J. F. Strickland, Vice President Tom Poynor; Agency Director 

M. H. Wolfe, Vice President J. L. Mims, Secretary and Actuary 

D. Easley Waggoner Vice Pres. & Gen. Mgr. Dr. C. W. Sempson, Medical Director 

“We Shall Keep Faith” 

ATTRACTIVE AGENCY CONTRACTS ARE NOW AVAILABLE 

Sheegog Printing Co.. Dallas 










THE 

DEMOCRATIC 

REVIEW 





VOL. 1 

MARCH, 1921 

No. 3 


0 resist the further encroachment of the Fed¬ 
eral Government on the sovereignty of these 
States, and thus help to perpetuate this 
Republic as our Fathers established it; to 
oppose the further abridgement of individual rights, 
and thus help to preserve for ourselv^. and our 
posterity the inestimable blessings of 
to support our constitutions, botib Stfe a^vl|<ede- 
ral, in all of their provisions, and^ufe mejp to? 
limit the power of those who are cho^;; W govera 
us; to contend against the progressive 
which is rapidly reducing us to a state of govern¬ 
mental pupilage, and thus help to restore that self- 
control without which no people can ever be cap¬ 
able of self-government; to defend the right of pri¬ 
vate property, and thus help to assure those who 
are industrious enough to work, and prudent 
enough to save, that they shall enjoy the fruits of 
their industry and their prudence; to combat 
Socialism in every form, and thus help to maintain 
an orderly government in our country,—are the 
principal purposes which this Magazine is intended 
to serve. 




















CONTENTS 


Amendments to the Federal Constitution. 
The Administration of Woodrow Wilson. 
Another Progressive View of Marriage. 
The Agricultural Primacy of Texas. 

Two Objections Justified. 


Application made for entry as second class mail 
matter at PostoflBce, Dallas. 



XHE 

DEMOCRATIC 

REVIEW 

Owned, Controlled and Edited by Joseph W, Bailey 


Published Monthly. Dallas, Texas. $1.50 Per Annum. 


AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

In the last issue of The Democratic Review, the Fort Worth 
Declaration of Principles was printed in full; and it is my pur¬ 
pose to discuss that document in orderly sequence, paragraph, 
by paragraph. According to that program, I shall begin, in this 
issue, with the first paragraph, which is as follows: 

We believe in a representative democracy, as exemplified 
by this Republic, and we are opposed to the Initiative and 
Referendum, or any other measure calculated to convert this 
Government into a direct democracy- Recognizing, however, 
that constitutions are designed to confer power, or to limit 
power already conferred, on legislative bodies, we hold that no 
constitution, or any amendment to it, should be adopted except 
by the people. Every State in the Union now applies this 
principle to its own constitution, and we favor an amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States requiring that here¬ 
after all amendments to it shall be submitted to a direct vote 
of the people in the several States for ratification or rejection. 

It would be an unnecessary tax on the readers’ patience to 
enter upon an argument in behalf of a representative Democracy; 
for even the advocates of the Initiative and Referendum did not 
dare directly challenge it, and constantly claimed that they were 
merely seeking a means to make our Democracy truly represen¬ 
tative. Their proposal, however, was a contradiction in logic, 
as well as terms, and a limited experience with those legislative 
methods has demonstrated that they involve an abandonment 
of the representative principle. Indeed, that demonstration be¬ 
came so plain that we now hear very little about the Initiative 
and Referendum in places where we heard very much a few years 
ago. 


8 




Some of those who are not willing to subscribe to the Fort 
Worth Declaration of Principles have criticised its first para¬ 
graph on the ground that it is inconsistent with itself. They 
say that it condemns the Initiative and Referendum as tending 
to establish a direct Democracy, and then proceeds to demand a 
referendum on amendments to the Federal Constitution. That 
criticism betrays an ignorance of the very essential difference 
between constitutions and statutes. In the first place, a consti¬ 
tution creates the government under which the people must live, 
and it should, therefore, emanate from them; in the second place, 
a constitution is designed to protect certain inalienable rights 
of the people against legislative interference, and, therefore, 
legislators should not be permitted to determine the extent to 
which they may interfere. 

Another, and a very practical, difference between constitu¬ 
tions and statutes lies in the difficulty of correcting a mistake 
as to one, and in the ease with which a mistake as to the other 
can be corrected. If an amendment to the Federal Constitution 
is properly adopted, it is extremely difficult to secure relief from 
it; it cannot, of course, be declared unconstitutional by the 
Courts; and to repeal it requires three-fourths of the States. 
But it is very different with a statute; if Congress passes a bill 
beyond its power, the Courts will hold it void; or if, within its 
power, it enacts a law which is hurtful to the interest, or repug¬ 
nant to the feeling, of the people, a bare majority can repeal it. 
For those reasons, it may be entirely safe to trust legislators 
to make or to amend the law, while it might be entirely unsafe 
to trust the same legislators to make or to amend a constitution. 

If the first paragraph in the Fort Worth Declaration of 
Principles is inconsistent with itself because after condemning 
the Initiative and Referendum, it demands that amendments to 
the Federal Constitution shall be submitted to a direct vote of 
the people, then the same charge can be justly preferred against 
many of our States. In every State, amendments to its Constitu¬ 
tion must be submitted to a direct vote of the people; but in the 
most enlightened States the Initiative and Referendum have not 
been adopted. Those who drew the Fort Worth Declaration of 
Principles deliberately intended to emphasize the distinction be¬ 
tween constitutions and statutes; otherwise they would have 


4 


demanded the submission of federal amendments to a direct 
vote of the people without mentioning the Initiative and Refer¬ 
endum. 

If it is wise to require that amendments to the Constitu¬ 
tion of a State shall be submitted to a direct vote of the people, 
then, for a stronger reason, amendments to the Constitution of 
the United States should be subjected to the same rule; because 
if the people of a State become dissatisfied with any constitu¬ 
tional amendment, they have it in their own power to relieve 
themselves from it, but no matter how thoroughly they may be 
dissatisfied with a federal amendment once ratified, they cannot 
relieve themselves of it. If every man, woman, and child in 
Texas should become convinced that the Woman-Suffrage Amend¬ 
ment, for instance, ought to be repealed, and if a majority of 
the States were to join us in demanding its repeal, we would be 
helpless; for three-fourths of the States would be required to re¬ 
peal it. 

I am one of those who believe that no constitution, and last 
of all the Federal Constitution, should be amended except to 
serve an important purpose—to eradicate some serious evil, or 
to secure some very positive benefit. Experiments in legislation 
are foolish, and experimenting with a constitution is dangerous. 
But the amendment which we have proposed will serve a more 
important purpose, and the necessity for it is so obvious that 
any opposition to it may be fairly ascribed to a spirit of faction 
or to a distrust of the people. Instead of presenting an abstract 
argument, which can be made unanswerable, I prefer to let two 
particular instances make out our case. They are so recent that 
nobody can have forgotten them, and they were so flagrant that 
they must have arrested the attention of every thinking man. 

In 1919, the people of Texas voted on a Woman-Suffrage 
Amendment to our State Constitution, rejecting it by a majority 
of more than 25,000; and that majority, sufficient as it was, 
did not measure the full opposition of our people to that amend¬ 
ment. The advocates of woman suffrage made an energetic 
campaign, actively aided by practically all office-holders and 
office-seekers, and by four-fifths of the press. On the other 
hand, the opponents of woman suffrage had no organization, 
except a small one composed of a few devoted women, who were 


5 


without any experience, and thousands of men who were opposed 
to the amendment took no interest in the contest, believing that 
the adoption of it could not be prevented. If a proper campaign 
had been made, the majority against the amendment would have 
been nearer 75,000 than 25,000. 

In less than thirty days after the election at which the 
people of Texas had rejected a Woman-Suffrage Amendment to 
our State Constitution, Congress submitted a Woman-Suffrage 
Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and our Legislature, 
convened in extraordinary session, promptly ratified it. The 
people had voted one way, and almost before their ballots had 
been counted the Legislature voted the other way. Can any man 
justify such conduct? If it had been a statute which the Legis¬ 
lature passed under such circumstances, the people could have 
righted the wrong by dismissing those faithless representatives 
and electing others pledged to repeal it; but no change in rep¬ 
resentatives could undo what had been done, for the action of 
one Legislature in ratifying an amendment to the Federal Con¬ 
stitution can not be rescinded by another Legislature. 

If the Legislature of Texas had honestly represented the 
people of Texas, that Woman-Suffrage Amendment would never 
have become a part of our Federal Constitution; for if this State 
had rejected it, every other Southern State, with the possible 
exception of Arkansas, would have followed our example, and 
enough States in other parts of the Union would have joined 
us to have defeated its final ratification. Those who then con¬ 
trolled the Legislature of Texas understood that as well as I 
did, and that was the reason they were so eager to ratify with¬ 
out giving the people a chance to be heard. To our own Legis¬ 
lature, therefore, forever attaches the unspeakable infamy of 
having betrayed the people in order that they might deprive 
this State of the right to determine for itself who may, and who 
may not, vote for its purely local officers. 

The other instance occurred in Tennessee. The Constitu¬ 
tion of that State provides that no Legislature can ratify any 
amendment to the Federal Constitution submitted after that 
Legislature had been chosen. The manifest purpose of that 
provision is to give the people an opportunity to control the 
result. But a Tennessee Legislature, chosen before the Woman- 


6 


Suffrage Amendment had been submitted, ratified that amend¬ 
ment in a shameless defiance of their State Constitution which 
they had sworn to support; and the pressure to which that 
Tennessee Legislature yielded was largely from the outside. 
With the President of the United States at the head of it, a 
movement was organized throughout the country to concentrate 
the suffrage forces on Tennessee; and that was supplemented 
by the exigent appeal of a presidential candidate. 

Reprehensible as was the conduct of the Texas Legislature, 
it was less reprehensible than the conduct of the Tennessee 
Legislature. The Texans, it is true, betrayed their constituents; 
but the Tennesseeans did that, and more—they aggravated their 
treachery by deliberately violating their constitution. No epi¬ 
sode in our history is more discreditable than that which marked 
the ratification of that Suffrage Amendment by Tennessee, and 
those who debauched the Legislature of that State feared to meet, 
in the courts of the country, the issue which they had raised. 
Having secured a pretended ratification of the amendment by 
Tennessee, they then turned to Connecticut and plead for a 
ratification by that State, urging that unless Connecticut rati¬ 
fied the amendment, and thus made it valid beyond all doubt, 
the Tennessee situation would involve the presidential election 
in a perilous confusion. Thus they made one wrong the pre¬ 
text for another. 

It would not be necessary to amend the Constitution in re¬ 
spect to the submission of amendments, if Congress would wisely 
exercise the power which it now possesses. The Amendment 
Article, as it now stands, provides that amendments may be 
submitted either to the Legislature or to conventions in the 
several States; and I venture to assert that the men who framed 
our Constitution provided the double reference to meet uncon¬ 
tested and contested amendments. It was intended that amend¬ 
ments universally approved would be submitted to the Legis¬ 
latures, so as to avoid the trouble and expense of calling con¬ 
ventions ; but it was never expected that important amendments 
about which a grave difference of opinion existed would be dis¬ 
posed of except by conventions called for that purpose. 

The Constitution itself was not submitted to Legislatures, 
but expressly required its own submission to conventions in the 


7 


several States. Referring an amendment to a convention would 
be almost equivalent to taking a direct vote of the people; be¬ 
cause, as such a convention would have no other business before 
it, the election of delegates to it would turn wholly on the ques¬ 
tion of ratifying or rejecting the amendment. Those in favor of 
the amendment would vote for a candidate who agreed with 
them, while those opposed to the amendment would vote for a 
candidate who agreed with them; and that would enable the 
people to insure the execution of their will with almost as much 
certainty as if they were accorded a direct vote on the question. 

When the Woman-Suffrage Amendment was pending in the 
Senate, a motion was made to refer it to conventions in the seve¬ 
ral States; but, with two exceptions, every Senator who voted 
for that amendment voted in favor of submitting it to the Leg¬ 
islatures, and thus secured its ratification by several States 
which would have rejected it, if it had been referred to conven¬ 
tions. Congress having demonstrated that it cannot be trusted 
to refer even the most important amendments to conventions, 
and the Legislatures having demonstrated that they cannot be 
trusted to respect the will of the people, our only safe course is 
to deprive Congress of its discretion, and compel it to submit 
every amendment to a direct vote of the people. In that way— 
and in that way only—can we make it certain that a great Com¬ 
monwealth cannot be betrayed in respect to questions over which 
its power once exercised cannot be re-asserted, and that faithless 
representatives can never again surrender to the Federal Gov¬ 
ernment a right which should always remain with the States. 


THE ADMINISTRATION OF WOODROW WILSON. 


Woodrow Wilson has passed out of the Presidency, and his 
Administration has passed into history, leaving behind a badly 
disrupted democratic party. Men differ, of course, as to the 
responsibility for that disruption; partisans of the ex-Presi- 
dent impute it to those who would not follow his leadership; 
and the men so accused charge that it is due to the President’s 
arbitrary and undemocratic conduct. That the latter explana¬ 
tion is the correct one does not, I think, admit of a reasonable 
doubt. Very soon after Mr. Wilson’s inauguration it became 


8 




apparent that he had determined to make the democratic party 
over again, and in pursuance of that determination he began 
to classify Democrats as “Progressives” and “Reactionaries.” 
The “Progressives” were men who were willing to embrace a 
new faith, and abandon their old one; the “Reactionaries” were 
men who refused to abandon their old faith, and embrace a new 
one. Looking to the best interest of his country and his party, 
a wise man woud have chosen the latter; because they were 
more steadfast in their principles. But not so with Mr. Wilson; 
he adopted the “Progressives” as his very own, and wholly ex¬ 
cluded the so-called “Reactionaries” from his favor. 

In States like Texas, where the party was already divided 
on that particular issue, Mr. Wilson bestowed all of the offices, 
as well as all other official favors, on the “progressive” Demo¬ 
crats, and the old fashioned Democrats who would not surrender 
their principles were denied recognition. Every important ap¬ 
pointment accorded to this State, with a single exception, was 
given to a “Progressive,” and the appointment which constituted 
that exception was made upon the earnest appeal of an ex-Gov- 
emor, who is a leading “Progressive,” and had helped to carry 
this State for Mr. Wilson in the pre-convention campaign of 1912. 

In States where the party had not been divided the Presi¬ 
dent proceeded to divide it by bestowing his patronage on the 
“Progressives,” preferring even Republicans and Socialists over 
Democrats who had presevered in the faith of their fathers. 
His last Cabinet appointment was bestowed on Mr. Colby, who 
had never been, or pretended to be, a Democrat. The result was 
inevitable. No reasonable man could have expected anything 
except a bitter resentment on the part of lifelong Democrats 
in finding themselves proscribed on account of their fidelity to 
their principles. 

Appointments always create disappointments, and when 
based on personal considerations frequently affect the personal 
popularity of a President; but such appointments never seriously 
affect a party. Unfortunately, however, appointments under 
President Wilson were not based on personal considerations, but 
were used as a means of promoting a departure from democratic 
principles. The test of fitness was no longer the Jeffersonian 
one, “Is he honest, is he capable?” but it was. Will the appointee 


9 


aid the President in his effort to establish a “Progressive Democ¬ 
racy?'' Confronted with that proposition, every Democrat in 
the land, even those who did not seek, and would not have ac¬ 
cepted, an office, became vitally interested in appointments. That 
question introduced the dissensions whch brought upon us the 
disaster without a parallel in the history of our party. 

Conceding that Mr. Wilson used the patronage of his great 
office with the deliberate purpose of converting the democratic 
party into a “progressive party," his supporters justify that 
course, and offer it as a further claim upon our loyal support. 
That is a curious process of reasoning, and when analyzed is 
equivalent to saying that to be a good Democrat a man must 
be ready to take up or to cast off his political opinions whenever 
he is commanded to do so. Can Democrats be expected to do 
that? It has been our proud claim for more than a century 
that our party is the only one in the history of this country 
which has ever been organized on definite political principles; 
and to that fact we have ascribed its survival while so many 
other parties have risen, flourished for a time, and then dissolved. 

I am not one of those who believe that we should cling to 
an opinion because it is old, any more than I am one of those 
who believe that we should adopt an opinion because it is new. 
I am willing to subscribe to this “progressive Democracy," if I 
can be convinced that it is better calculated to preserve the 
liberty and promote the welfare of our people; but I must first 
know what it means. No man with authority has yet ventured 
to define it. Its sponsors have indulged in some glittering gen¬ 
eralities which do not appeal to me. The nearest approach to a 
definition of it has been the assertion that it has been illustrated 
by the “great achievements of the Wilson Administration." 
That is entirely too vague; but as it seems to be the most definite 
answer which the President's friends are able to make, I sup¬ 
pose we must judge it in that way. Let us, then, analyze those 
achivements. 

The first “great achievement of the Wilson Administration" 
which they require us to applaud is the “Federal Reserve Act," 
as it calls itself. That act is not the product of “progressive" 
Democracy; and they must know that it is not. It is substan¬ 
tially the same banking system which was recommended by the 


10 


Monetary Commission, of which Nelson W. Aldrich was the 
Chairman; and whatever may be its merits or its demerits, it 
was conceived in the brain of a stalwart Republican. The chief 
difference between the system recommended by Senator Aldrich 
and the system enacted under President Wilson is that Aldrich 
proposed a Central Bank, with branches throughout the country, 
while the existing law created a Federal Reserve Board, and 
established regional banks throughout the country. That dif¬ 
ference is not essential; for the Federal Reserve Board exercises 
practically the same power over the regional banks that the 
Central Bank would have exercised over its branches. There 
are other differences; but they are details, and even less impor¬ 
tant than the one which I have just mentioned. 

The Democratic Review intends, at some suitable time, to 
discuss our present banking law at length; but it is not practi¬ 
cable to do that in this editorial. I will, however, take the time 
now to say that it renders a currency panic impossible under a 
wise administration of it, and in that vital respect it is excellent. 
It is also true, however, that it is fatally weak unless wisely 
administered; and I would not vest in any seven men living 
today, or in any seven men who have ever lived, such absolute 
control over the currency of this country as the Federal Reserve 
Board now possesses. They not only control the currency, but 
they have assumed a control over all banks; they can prevent a 
sufficient issue of currency when it is needed, and they can 
permit an over-issue of currency when it is not needed. But 
more of all this, hereafter; I am concerned here merely with 
the Federal Reserve Banking System as an ‘‘achievement of 
progressive Democracy,” and the fact that it was originally 
devised by a Republican sufficiently disposes of that claim. 

The second “great achievement” credited to the Wilson Ad¬ 
ministration is the tariff law now on our statute books; and I 
freely concede that the difference between Democracy and “pro¬ 
gressive Democracy” is thoroughly illustrated by that law. A 
democratic tariff bill would lay all duties as low as the revenue 
necessities of the Government would permit, and adjust them so 
that they would not descriminate in favor of, or against, any 
class, section, or industry. Does the present tariff law conform 
to that rule? It does not; because it levies a duty on practi- 


11 


cally every manufactured article, while it places all raw materials 
and all farm products on the free list. Such a law is thoroughly 
undemocratic, and utterly indefensible. No man has ever yet 
been able to give a good reason why manufactured products 
should be subject to a duty and agricultural products should be 
imported without a duty. 

What is the difference between the factory and the farm 
which warrants the levy of a duty on the products of one, and not 
on the products of the other? The same rule should be applied 
to both. If the farmer must buy in a taxed market, he has the 
right to sell in a taxed market; and if the farmer must sell in 
a free market, he has a right to buy in a free market. These 
propositions are so indisputably sound that Democrats once re¬ 
garded them as among the proverbs of Democracy. The apolo¬ 
gists for that unjust discrimination attempt to excuse it by 
saying that farm products are the necessaries of life; but that 
is not sufficient. We must have clothes no less than bread. 
Indeed, we must have clothes even if we go without bread; for 
the law does not compel us to eat bread, but it does compel us to 
wear clothes when we appear in public. 

But notwithstanding the fact that the people must buy 
clothes, our present law imposes an average duty of more than 
35 per cent on them, and at the same time imposes no duty at 
all on the raw material out of which they are made. It would 
be difficult to imagine a grosser discrimination than that. The 
people buy clothes because the law compels us to wear them, 
and also for the sake of decency and comfort; the manufacturers 
buy the raw material out of which clothes are made, purely for 
the sake of the profit which they can make by manufacturing it 
into cloth; and yet these “progressive’' statesmen have enacted 
a law which levies a duty of more than 35 per cent on the cloth¬ 
ing made out of that duty-free material. Why should the toiling 
millions be subjected to these tariff taxes, while the rich manu¬ 
facturers are exempted? 

My first difference with the Wilson Administration arose 
over the tariff bill. I protested against its provisions placing 
raw materials and farm products on the free list, while manu¬ 
factured goods were placed on the dutiable list. I pointed out the 
injustice to the South and West, and entreated them not to 


12 


signalize the democratic party’s accession to power by discrim¬ 
inating against those who had loyally supported its ticket. 
Neither Senator Underwood, who was then in the House of 
Representatives and had charge of the bill there, nor Senator 
Simmons, who managed the bill in the Senate, believed in free 
raw materials or free farm products; but the President demanded 
both, and he had his way in that matter as he did in everything 
else during the first six of his eight years in the presidential 
office. 

Before that law had been in operation long enough to reveal 
its injustice, the European war came, with the consequent de¬ 
crease in supply and increase in demand. Then followed our own 
participation in that war, and with the whole civilized world 
under arms, all economic laws were, to an extent, suspended. But 
within a reasonable time after hostilities had ceased and our 
country was approaching again a normal condition, the injustice 
of our tariff law began to exhibit itself so plainly that a republi¬ 
can committee proposed a bill to remedy it. Many Democrats— 
among them several from Texas, including Senator Sheppard in 
the Senate and John N. Garner in the House, voted for that 
republican bill to remedy an injustice which had been inflicted 
upon our farmers and ranchmen by a democratic bill. 

In proclaiming the present tariff law as one of their '‘great 
achievements,” the “Progressives” have helped the people to 
better understand the difference between Democracy and “pro¬ 
gressive Democracy” on the tariff question. If the law may 
justly discriminate against our farms and in favor of our fac¬ 
tories, then the “progressives” may be right, and we may be 
wrong; but if the law cannot justly discriminate against our 
farms and in favor of our factories, then we must be right, 
and the “Progressives” must be wrong. That is one of the 
questions which the democratic party must decide before it 
enters upon another presidential campaign; and in order that 
the decision may truly reflect the will of the people, it ought 
to be fairly discussed on every suitable occasion. The Demo¬ 
cratic Review will contribute its full part to that discussion. 

The third “great achievement of the Wilson Administration” 
over which we must enthuse or be condemned by the Wilson 
worshipers is the law establishing the Farm Loan Banks, which. 


18 


algo, emphasizes the difference between Democracy and “pro¬ 
gressive Democracy.” The democratic party would never have 
passed that law; for the very sufficient reason that Congress 
had no constitutional power to pass it. The men who prepared 
that Farm Loan Bank Bill knew that as well as I know it, and 
in order to give their measure a semblance of constitutionality, 
they wrote a falsehood in it. The Act itself declares that the 
banks organized under it should become fiscal agents of the 
United States; but they knew perfectly well that those banks 
would never be so employed, and it was not intended that they 
should be. That declaration was incorporated in the law solely 
for the purpose of preventing the courts from declaring it un¬ 
constitutional, and that subterfuge saved it. 

But I go further, and I say frankly that the Farm Loan 
Bank Law ought never to have been passed, even if Congress 
had possessed the power to pass it; because it is class legislation 
pure and simple. Ji the Government should provide our farm¬ 
ers with money to buy their farms, then it should provide 
mechanics with money to buy their homes; and if it does the 
one, it will, in time, do the other. Nor will that be all. Having 
provided the farmer with money to buy his farm, and the 
mechanic with money to buy his home. Congress can not deny 
the petition of other classes for a similar favor. If any one is 
served in this way, all who come have a right to be served in 
the same way; and the Government will soon find itself under 
the necessity of raising money by taxation to finance those 
banks. We shall then see the beginning of the end. The Gov¬ 
ernment has a perfect right to tax all men for the purpose of 
raising money to defray its own expenses; but it has no right 
to tax any man for the purpose of raising money to lend to 
another man, and such legislation must eventuate in Socialism. 

Not only is this law class legislation; but it discriminates 
even among the class for whose benefit it was designed. I doubt 
if 5 per cent of our farmers patronize the Federal Loan Bank, 
and the other 95 per cent derive no advantage from it. Its 
benefits are limited to a few; and the worst aspect of that con¬ 
dition is that the farmers who can borrow money from it are 
those who have the least need of governmental assistance, while 
the farmers who stand most in need of governmental assistance 


14 


can not borrow money from it, because they have no land to 
offer as security. I have no patience with the demagogues who 
are always crying aloud about the poor, because I know that 
they are more interested in getting an office than they are in 
the welfare of the poor; but I do say, and I say it without hesi¬ 
tation or qualification, that if it is the duty of the Government 
to provide for anybody, it ought to provide first for those who 
are not able to provide for themselves. 

I will go further still, and say that if the Farm Loan Bank 
Law were constitutional, and if it were not class legislaton, it 
ought not to have been enacted; because its effect on the minds 
of our people will be injurious in more than one respect. In the 
first place, its tendency will be to incline the individual to look 
more to the Government, and less to his own exertions. I sin¬ 
cerely wish that every farmer owned his farm and that every 
mechanic owned his home; but I know the importance of having 
every man in a free country feel that he has worked, made, and 
saved what he owns. That cultivates the spirit which makes 
men free, and keeps nations independent. Liberty can not long 
survive the loss of self-reliance among the people; for whenever 
men come to expect that the Government will do much for them, 
they are not apt to do very much for themselves. A modest 
home which shelters a man who is proudly conscious that he 
earned the money which paid for it is worth more to this Repub¬ 
lic than a palace whose owner knows that it was bought with the 
favors of the Government. 

In the second place, the tendency of this law will be to 
encourage men to mortgage their lands, and to continue them 
under mortgage. That tendency is inevitable under any system 
of long-time loans, at a low rate of interest. Admitting the 
correctness of what I have just said, it is contended by some 
that such a tendency is not harmful. That raises the question 
of whether it is better to pay a debt as rapidly as possible or to 
take as long a time as possible in which to pay it; and here 
again we are confronted with a difference between Democracy 
and ''progressive Democracy.’' Democracy has always believed 
and taught that it was a wise policy to pay as you go; but "pro¬ 
gressive Democracy” believes and teaches to the contrary, and 
enormous debts. National, State, County, and Municipal, have 


15 


been contracted during the last few years by the ‘‘progressive” 
politicians who have administered those various divisions of the 
Government. 

Democrats recognize that men will incur debts in the pur¬ 
chase of land, and we do not regard that as unwise; but we do 
regard it as very unwise to postpone the payment of them longer 
than necessary. We know that few men are provident enough 
to anticipate the payment of their debts; and with the payment 
postponed for almost the life of a man, the effort to pay will be 
relaxed, and money which, under a different system, would be 
applied to the discharge of land mortgage debts will be spent 
for other and unnecessary things. I would rejoice if all farm¬ 
ers could own their farms; but a mortgaged farm is only par¬ 
tially owned, and it is better for the farmers themselves that 
they shall own less land and have what they do own paid for in 
full, than it is for them to own more land, and have it all mort¬ 
gaged. This law will tend more to encourage men who have 
lands to mortgage them than it will to encourage men who have 
no lands to buy them. 

The origin of this law does no credit to its authors. Learn¬ 
ing in some way that certain countries in the Old World—notably 
Germany—had these land banks, and forgetting how widely 
the relations between the people and the Government there dif¬ 
fer from the relations between the people and the Government 
here, they proceeded to copy largely from the German law on 
that subject. It is far from my mind to say anything which 
could intensify an ungenerous prejudice against any nationality; 
but I cannot forbear the observation that it was a foolish Amer¬ 
ican Congress which sought to Germanize the land loans of this 
country. Their theory of government is not ours, and our theory 
of government is not theirs. With them, the State is the guard¬ 
ian of the people; with us the people are the guardians of the 
State. With us, the duty of the Government is not to help any 
citizen acquire a home, but to protect every citizen in the full 
enjoyment of the home which he has acquired. 

There are other “great achievements of the Wilson Admin¬ 
istration” to be discussed; but I will defer their discussion until 
the next issue, because what I have now written will occupy as 


16 


much space as ought to be devoted to any one subject in a 
single issue of this magazine. 


ANOTHER PROGRESSIVE VIEW OF MARRIAGE. 


In the last issue, I presented ^‘A Trogressive* View of Mar- 
riage,” upon which I briefly commented; and in this issue, I 
feel it my duty to call attention to another and peculiar view 
urged upon us by an influential -class of women, who demand 
that the marriage relation, as it now exists, shall be altered to 
the extent of permitting a married woman to retain her maiden 
name instead of taking her husband's name. That seems such 
an absurd proposal that many people will consider it a waste 
of time to talk about it; but they would think differently if they 
knew how many of these so called ‘‘women leaders” advocate it. 
Only a few weeks ago Miss Margaret Wilson, a daughter of the 
President of the United States, publicly approved that proposi¬ 
tion. The Washington Post, one day last month, printed the 
following: 

WOULD USE MAIDEN NAMES. 

Woman Pays Club Plan Indorsed by 
Miss Margaret Wilson. 


New York, Feb. 2.—Miss Margaret Wilson, the Presi¬ 
dent’s daughter, has indorsed a resolution of the Woman Pays 
Club advocating the use by professional women of their maiden 
names, regardless of marriage, it was announced after a lunch¬ 
eon given in her honor here today. Authors, composers, play¬ 
wrights, musicians and other self-supporting women comprise 
the club’s membership. 

According to that plan, proposed and endorsed by these 
female “intellectuals,” Mr. Jones' wife, in law, may remain 
Miss Smith, in name. That a man and woman, each bearing a 
different name, should live together as man and wife borders 
on the indecent; the very suggestion of it degrades the marriage 
relation, and nothing could be better calculated to distil a subtle 
poison into the minds of our men and young women. The fact 
that it is there only proposed to extend that special privilege to 
“professional women” does not diminish the danger; for the bad 
example of such women is the more apt to be imitated. Our 
pious mothers taught us that the “twain shall be one flesh.” But 


17 






if we were to repeat that scriptural rule to those “progressive” 
women, they would probably say of the Bible, as their “pro¬ 
gressive” brothers do of our Constitution, that while it was per¬ 
haps good enough for the time in which it was written, the 
world has outgrown it. 

The Democratic Review does not concern itself with con¬ 
duct or opinions which affect only private individuals; but the 
marriage relation is a matter of such great importance to the 
country that it wears a political aspect, and it is that aspect 
which moves this magazine to discuss it. The marriage relation 
is the basis of the home, and the home is the basis of all civili¬ 
zation. Without the marriage relation, there could be no home 
in which a race of sturdy freemen could be born, or reared; 
and without such men this Republic can not endure. A large 
majority of our people understand that; but they do not seem 
to understand that many others dispute it. We must recognize 
that the marriage relation, as it has been established and main¬ 
tained in this country, is under challenge; and we must also 
recognize that the people who are crying out for a “new day” 
in politics are unwittingly helping to bring on us a “new day” 
in our home life. 

When these apostles of “a new relation between the sexes” 
first appeared among us, they were abhorred by every Christian 
maid and mother; but gradually the abhorrence has passed away, 
and a woman who now insists that marriage shall be treated 
purely as a civil contract is hailed as more “progressive” than 
her sisters who think otherwise, and she does not impair her 
social standing or render herself less welcome wherever she 
may go. Indeed, society seems rather to enjoy the company of 
those who entertain such “daring thoughts;” and they have 
gained rather than lost in social prestige. But what a commen¬ 
tary on society! We must not lay the flattering unction to our 
souls that these changes have occurred elsewhere, but not with 
us; for, I regret to say, we cannot claim exemption from them. 

Less than two years ago a woman who had publicly scoffed 
at the marriage ceremony as a “mockery and a relic of the bar¬ 
baric ages” was invited to this State, and received as an honored 
guest in the homes of our most respectable people. She was 
greeted everywhere she went with such applause as was never 


16 


before bestowed upon any woman in Texas; and although she 
had never pretended to be a Democrat, the then Chairman of 
the State Democratic Committee travelled from Dallas to Fort 
Worth in order that he might '‘enjoy the honor of introducing 
Miss Shaw’^ at a political meeting there. I understand, of 
course, that there is a difference between the marriage ceremony 
and the marriage relation; but the difference is not very great, 
and whoever begins by denouncing the one will end by denounc¬ 
ing the other. I am not much given to ceremonies; but the 
marriage ceremony is one in which I devoutly believe, and I 
confess myself unable to believe in any man or any woman who 
does not believe in it. 


THE AGRICULTURAL PRIMACY OF TEXAS. 


Every intelligent Texan knows that the agricultural pro¬ 
ducts of this State exceed in value the agricultural products 
of any other State in the Union; but many of them do not know 
the extent of our primacy in that respect. The Federal Depart¬ 
ment of Agriculture recently issued a bulletin giving. State by 
State, the value of all crops last year, based on prices paid to 
producers as of December 1, 1920. According to that bulletin, 
the crops of Texas were worth, in round numbers, $730,000,000, 
while the crops of Iowa, which was second to Texas, were worth, 
in round numbers, only $460,000,000. and the crops of other 
great States, like Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, and Indiana, were still 
further below us in their value. But pronounced as our advan¬ 
tage is, or was last year, it is but the suggestion of what we 
can and will make it in the years to come. 

There are important questions connected with the agricul¬ 
tural development of this State which The Democratic Review 
expects to discuss from time to time; but they are reserved 
for a separate consideration hereafter. My present purpose is to 
impress upon the minds of our people that Texas is essentially 
an agricultural State; and its material welfare must always 
depend, in a large measure, on a successful cultivation of its 
farms. We have our manufactures, and I rejoice to see them 
increase; we also have our profitable commerce, and I shall cheer¬ 
fully assist in extending it; but after all, our manufactures and 


19 




our commerce are sustained by the patronage furnished by the 
farms. With us, it is as true financially as it is physically that 
everything rests upon the earth. As our farmers prosper every¬ 
body in Texas prospers with them; and the reverse is likewise 
true. 

Washington declared that agriculture is the oldest and most 
honorable occupation of man; and he might have added that it is 
the occupation which is, above all others, essential to the com¬ 
fort and the happiness of the human race. Those are high claims 
upon our good-will; but they are not the only claims which 
recommend the farmers of Texas to the people of Texas. They 
not only pursue an ancient and an honorable calling; they not 
only supply us with our bread and our meat,—but they produce 
the wealth which builds our factories and expands our com¬ 
merce. In paying this tribute to our farmers, I am not thinking 
of what they may think of me for what I have said about them; 
but I am thinking that it will be helpful to the State if all other 
classes better appreciate what we owe to those who “follow 
the plough.” And, moreover, if what I have said produces any 
effect on the minds of our farmers, it will only be to make them 
think more of themselves, and not less of other people. I de¬ 
spise the demagogue who strives to engender class prejudice; 
but I love the patriot who endeavors to encourage a just class 
pride. 


TWO OBJECTIONS JUSTIFIED. 


Long before the question of equal suffrage for the sexes 
had become acute, I stated, as one of my objections to it, that 
the introduction of women into our electorate would inevitably 
tend to eliminate from our public discussions what we have been 
in the habit of calling the fundamental principles of this gov- 
emm.ent. That opinion was based upon a knowledge that the 
women who would be most certain to become active in our politics 
would be those who are more intent on “reforming” society than 
on preserving great principles; and the history of our own coun¬ 
try, as well as the history of all other free countries, makes it 
plain that all such politicians are impatient of the very restraints 


20 




which are necessary to secure the blessings of liberty to our¬ 
selves and our posterity. 

Reformers are always aiming at what they think is a practi¬ 
cal good; and in seeking to accomplish that, their efforts lead 
toward a Socialism—a larger control over the individual by the 
Government, and to a less control of the individual over himself. 
It is inevitable that where such issues are pressed upon the 
attention of the people the more supremely important question 
of administering the Government according to the principles on 
which it was founded will disappear from our discussions; be¬ 
cause the advocates of Socialism will not discuss fundamental 
principles, and the opponents of Socialism are apt to occupy 
their time in answering the arguments advanced by the other 
side, which means that our debates will constantly descend from 
the essentials of government to mere questions of the day. 

I also stated, as one of my objections to female suffrage, 
that the introduction of women into our electorate would be 
certain, for a time at least, and possibly for all time, to inject 
into our politics an appeal to sex; and that opinion was based 
upon the knowledge that the campaign for woman suffrage had 
been conducted on a plan which inevitably segregated women 
voters. We know what that means. We have had an ample 
experience in what it means to divide our voters into groups. 
The Irish vote, the German vote, and the labor vote have long 
been the problem of our practical politics; but conciliating the 
Irish vote, or the German vote, or the labor vote, was mere 
child's play as compared with the task of conciliating the woman 
vote. 

Both of the objections which I have recalled above were 
fully justified at a meeting of the National Woman's Party, held 
recently at Washington. I did not attend its sessions, but I 
followed the proceedings as closely as I could by reading the 
printed reports. From the time that convention was called to 
order until the final adjournment was declared, not a single 
reference was made to the fundamental principles of this gov¬ 
ernment; but the demand was for more legislation, and for a 
larger substitution of the will of the government for the will of 
the individual. If those women can have their way, the paternal 
government with which we have been afflicted for several years 


21 


—and God knows that was bad enough—will yield to a maternal 
government, which will be infinitely worse. 

A part of the programme was arranged so that spokesmen 
for the various political parties could present their respective 
claims on the support of the women assembled; and the argu¬ 
ments were addressed to them, not as American citizens, or as 
Democrats, or as Republicans, or as Socialists, but solely as 
women. Some of those arguments were well calculated to do 
more than raise a sex issue—they would, if followed to their 
necessary conclusion, provoke a sex antagonism. Those women 
were urged to support each particular party because that party 
had done this or that for the women, and not because it had 
done some great service for all of the people. It does not re¬ 
quire any special wisdom for a man to discern that if this is to 
be the rule which governs women in their political conduct, they 
are to become, not citizens, not voters, not Democrats, not Repub¬ 
licans, and not Socialists, but they are to be women in politics; 
and nothing could be more hurtful either to the women them¬ 
selves or to the country. 

The grace to save us in our present situation will be found 
in the good sense of the American women who are not politicians, 
and have no thought of becoming politicians. Those women have 
never desired to vote, and do not now desire to vote; because 
they are unwilling to divert their time and attention from their 
home duties and their social duties to the strife and turmoil of 
politics. They were satisfied to trust the government of their 
country to their husbands, their fathers, their sons, and their 
brothers; but they will vote hereafter, because they are coming 
to understand that if they remain at home while the other kind 
of women go to the polls, our country will be governed by those 
who will legislate for us according to their vagaries, instead of 
according to sound principles. One of the curious developments 
of woman suffrage will be that the men who were earnest in 
opposing it will hereafter be the most earnest in urging the 
women of their families to vote, and the women who did not 
desire the franchise will, in due time, exercise it with the great¬ 
est regularity. 


22 





Lord’s Glasses 

Not the Name of a Thing 
But of a Service. 

More than twenty-four years ago, when 
this business was founded, real superior 
optical service was made the corner¬ 
stone around which all efforts wer« 
centered. 

Don’t experiment—It it too costly. 


LORD’S 

704 Main Ft. Worth 

Established 1896 






AUTHORIZED 

DEALERS 

FOR 


9th and commerce STS. 

Fort Worth, Texas 



An institution catering 
to the public. Known 
as the San Antonio 
home of all Texas. .*• 




PERCY TYRRELL. Manatfer 

































Assets Over Ten Million Dollars 


Great 

Southern Life Insurance 
Company 

Houston Dallas 

‘'Texas’ Hundred Millon Dollar Company” 


Annual Statement 

December 31, 1920 

ADMITTED ASSETS LIABILITIES 


Policy Reserves and, all other 

Liabilities. $9,584,510.39 


First Mortgage Loans. $5,929,277.39 

Real Estate. 395,426.64 

Policy Loans (within reserve).... 1,733,607.61 

Liberty Bonds. 887,050.00 

Other Bonds. 270,000.00 

Cash on Deposit. 657,238.49 

All Other Assets. 475,909.49 


Surplus to Policyholders includ¬ 
ing Capital Stock, $600,000,- 
00. 763,999.23 


TOTAL.$10,348,509.62 TOTAL.$10,348,509.62 


Insurance in Force - - - $105,573,682.00 


Has Never Issued a Policy with 
Double Indemnity 
Premium Reduction 
Coupons 

Group Insurance 

(No Frills or Trimmings) 


Issues Only 

Plain Simple Contracts 

Full Reserve Values (Cash, Paid-up 

or Extended Insurance.) 

Full Total Disability Benefits 
Monthly Income Payments to Bene¬ 
ficiaries in all Approved Forms. 


We Offer No Inducements to Agents Except Prompt 
Service and Fair Treatment. 

O.S. CARLTON, - - President E. P. GREENWOOD, Vice-President 

HOUSTON daij:.as 


Insurance in Force Over One Hundred Million Dollars 


Skeegog Printing Co., Dallas 



























THE 

DEMOCRATIC 

REVIEW 





VOL. 1 

APRIL, 1921 

No. 4 


0 resist the further encroachment of the Fed¬ 
eral Government on the sovereignty of these 
States, and thus help to perpetuate this 
Republic as our Fathers established it; to 
oppose the further abridgement of individual rights, 
and thus help to preserve for ourselves and our 
posterity the inestimable blessings of civil liberty; 
to support our constitutions, both State and Fede¬ 
ral, in all of their provisions, and thus help to 
limit the power of those who are chosen to govern 
us; to contend against the jprogres^e paternalism 
which is rapidly reducing/,us to A^stafi^ of govern¬ 
mental pupilage, and thu^eh)^ >|testi|^e that self- 
control without which noraeopm tian^lyer be cap¬ 
able of self-government; to\^^d th^ttght of pri¬ 
vate property, and thus heIp^.X^fiMre those who 
are industrious enough to work, and prudent 
enough to save, that they shall enjoy the fruits of 
their industry and their prudence; to combat 
Socialism in every form, and thus help to maintain 
an orderly government in our country,—are the 
principal purposes which this Magazine is intended 
to serve. 


















CONTENTS 


A Written Constitution. 

Bailey Voting with Republicans. 
Political Preachers. 

Wilson, Washington and Lincoln. 


Entered as second class mail matter at 
Postoffice, Dallas. 



THE 

DEMOCRATIC 

REVIEW 

Owned, Controlled and Edited by Joseph W. Bailey 


Published Monthly. Dallas, Texas. $1.50 Per Annum. 


A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION. 


In the February number of the Democratic Review I printed 
the Fort Worth Declaration of Principles, and announced that I 
would discuss that document, paragraph by paragraph, until I 
had presented the argument in behalf of the whole. In pur¬ 
suance of that plan I discussed the first paragraph in the March 
number; and in this number I shall consider the second para¬ 
graph, which reads as follows: 

“W'e believe in a written constitution, and in a faithful 
obedience to all of its provisions. We especially denounce, as 
fraught with the gravest danger, the enactment of legislation 
under the pretext that it is designed for a constitutional pur¬ 
pose, when the authors of it perfectly understand that its pur¬ 
pose is wholly unconstitutional. Such legislation is doubly 
vicious; because it is based upon a false pretense discreditable 
to Congress, and violates the constitution in a manner to pre¬ 
vent judicial correction. 

That this Republic should have a written constitution is 
conceded by all men in this country; and I need not, therefore, 
extend this editorial with any argument on that question. It is 
further admitted by all men that a written constitution ought 
to be obeyed as it was written; but many of our present day 
politicians do not conform their legislative conduct to that ad¬ 
mission, and they are constantly devising means to evade the 
constitutional limitations on their power. Their conduct in that 
respect has rendered the practice denounced in the second 
sentence of the paragraph above quoted from the Fort Worth 
Declaration of Principles a matter of deep and immediate con- 


3 





cern to every man who believes in a constitutional government. 
Has any Congressman elected under a Constitution which re¬ 
quires him to swear that he will support it, a moral or a political 
right to support a measure in palpable conflict with that con¬ 
stitution ? 

That the above question should need a discussion among 
men claiming to be Democrats is one of the amazing develop¬ 
ments of modern politics; for until recent years, no matter how 
much democratic Senators and Representatives may have dif¬ 
fered about the constitutionality of particular measures, none 
of them ever voted for one which he knew to be clearly uncon¬ 
stitutional. But with the advent of “progressive Democracy,” 
all of this has changed, and its leaders boldly urge Congress to 
enact measures which they know to be unconstitutional. They 
denounce the courts for holding that all laws in conflict with the 
Constitution are void, and many of them have gone so far as to 
demand that any Judge who delivers a decision to that effect 
should be impeached. 

Unable, however, to convince our courts that a bill repugnant 
to the Constitution ought, nevertheless, to be the law of the 
land, they have invented a method of violating the Constitution by 
passing laws under false pretenses, and one method of doing that 
is by the levy of a tax. They resort to that method; because 
years ago the Supreme Court of the United States decided that 
as Congress possesses the power to levy taxes, the courts can not 
inquire into the motives with which any given law was enacted 
and say that it was not enacted for the purpose of raising 
revenue. That may, or it may not, be a wise rule for the courts 
to follow; but whether wise or otherwise, it does not apply to 
legislators, for they always know when they vote whether or 
not they are voting in favor of a particular bill for the purpose 
of raising revenue to support the Government. 

I freely admit that the practice of passing unconstitutional 
laws under the false pretense of raising revenue originated with 
the republican party before this “new thought” had begun to 
manifest itself in the democratic party; but that bad republican 
example is now eagerly followed by these “progressive Demo¬ 
crats.” The first legislation of that kind enacted in our time 
was the Oleomargarine Bill, the purpose of which was to pro- 


4 


tect the dairies of the country against the competition of cer¬ 
tain cotton-seed oil products. I had the honor to take a princi¬ 
pal part in the debate of that bill, and when the final roll was 
called on it, every democratic Senator, with a single exception, 
voted against it. The single democratic Senator who voted for 
it, when afterwards defeated for re-election to the Senate, ac¬ 
cepted an appointment from a republican President, and held 
office under a republican Administration for several years. 

No man in the Senate then pretended to believe that Con¬ 
gress had any power to regulate the manufacture and sale of 
oleomargarine in the several States; and if their bill had so 
provided, the courts would have promptly pronounced it uncon¬ 
stitutional. In order, therefore, to save it from judicial con¬ 
demnation, the Republicans resorted to a false pretense and 
levied a tax designed to do, indirectly, what it was admitted 
they had no power to do, directly. The bill was drawn as a 
revenue measure simply to bring it within those decisions of the 
Supreme Court which hold that as Congress possesses the power 
to levy taxes, the courts can not assume to look into the minds 
and hearts of congressmen and say that they did not levy that 
particular tax for the purpose of raising revenue. 

What is known as the 'Tossy Jaw Match Law” was another 
bill passed by the Republicans under a false pretense. That is 
the bill about which we heard a great deal during the last cam¬ 
paign in Texas, and particularly from the club women of our 
State. They went about denouncing our candidate for Governor 
because he had voted against it, and asserting everywhere that 
he was in favor of manufacturing matches by a process which 
inflicted a dreadful disease upon the women and the children 
who worked in certain match factories. They did not know— 
or if they knew, they gave no sign of knowing—what his real 
objection was. The authors and supporters of that bill con¬ 
ceded that Congress has no power to say how matches shall, or 
shall not, be manufactured in any State. They dared not write 
their bill so as to disclose its real purpose, and they deliberately 
made it a tax measure so as to save it from being held uncon¬ 
stitutional by the courts. Every man who voted for that bill 
knew that it was not intended to raise revenue. 

The vote on the 'Tossy Jaw Match Bill” exhibited the "prog- 


5 


ress^^ which this “new thought’^ had made in the democratic 
party; because many of the same Democrats who voted for it 
had voted against the Oleomargarine Bill. Having once aband¬ 
oned a principle in which they had always professed to believe, 
these faithless Representatives and Senators “progressed” rap¬ 
idly, and soon grew bold enough to vote for a bill directly regu¬ 
lating child labor in the States. That was a somewhat bolder 
pretense than the Republicans had yet ventured upon; but it 
was still a false pretense. It is true that they attempted to 
justify that legislation under the claim that it was a regulation 
of Interstate and Foreign Commerce; but there was not a man 
in either House of Congress who voted for that Child Labor 
Bill believing that it was really intended to regulate Interstate 
and Foreign Commerce. They all knew that the purpose of it 
was to regulate child labor in the several States, and for that 
reason the Supreme Court held it unconstitutional. 

Did those “progressive Democrats” accept the decision of the 
highest Court, and abandon their efforts to regulate child labor 
within the several States ? Not at all! Defeated in their direct 
attempt to violate the Constitution which they had sworn to 
support, they resorted to the republican subterfuge of levying 
a tax. They deliberately took the bill which had been condemned 
by the highest court in the land as an unconstitutional invasion 
of the rights of these States, and incorporated it in a revenue 
bill, hoping thus to prevent the Court from passing judgment 
on its constitutionality. No man in that Congress voted for 
the child labor section of that bill for the purpose of raising 
revenue; and every man who supported it did so for the purpose 
of regulating child labor, which the Supreme Court had decided 
that they had no right to do—and their own intelligence had 
told them the same thing before the Supreme Court had spoken 
on the subject. 

I could specify many other laws like those mentioned above; 
but to do so would extend this editorial beyond all reasonable 
length, and those which I have commented on are sufficient to 
impress every thoughtful man with the danger of such conduct. 
And what excuse do these men offer for thus paltering their 
own conscience, and violating the Constitution which they had 
sworn to support? Their excuse, and their only excuse, is that 


6 


they were legislating in accord with the “progressive spirit of 
this age/' What a gross misuse of good words! If to debauch 
the legislative conscience, and make the legislator indifferent to 
his oath, is progressive, then I rejoice all the more that I am one 
of those “old fashioned Democrats" who believe that the oath 
of office is not an idle ceremony, and that the men who take it 
ought to keep it “without mental reservation or purpose of 
evasion." 


“BAILEY VOTED WITH THE REPUBLICANS." 


When the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Bill, and the Reciprocity 
Treaty with Canada were pending, and for two or three years 
after they had been disposed of by the Senate, the anti-Bailey 
men of this State, under the leadership of the Dallas News, 
habitually asserted that I always voted with the Republicans on 
the tariff question, and the recent revival of that question seems 
to have revived that false accusation against me. Almost every 
day I receive a letter from some friend saying that this charge 
is now being made against me, and asking me to refute it. If 
this matter related only to me, I would not be willing to use the 
Democratic Review in refuting it; but, as it more or less in¬ 
volves the political history of this State, I think it entirely proper 
that the Democratic Review shall furnish its readers correct 
information on the subject, and I herewith reproduce from the 
Congressional Record, the answer whch I made to that calumny 
on the floor of the Senate. 

In the House of Representatives 
January 24th, 1912. 

VOTES ON RECIPROCITY AND TARIFF BILLS. 

“Mr. Bailey. Mr. President, during the last session of this 
Congress many newspapers and politicans asserted wth weari¬ 
some iteration that I was constantly acting and voting with the 
Republican majority upon all tariff questons, and even after 
that session adjourned those same newspapers and politicians 


7 




continued to repeat that assertion. I have little patience with 
an argument predicated upon the fact that a Democrat voted 
with Republicans, or that Republicans voted with Democrats, 
because I think it infinitely more important to inquire whether 
a man voted right or wrong than whether he voted with or 
against certain men; but since those who have assailed me ap¬ 
pear to consider that a sufficient argument to satisfy the intelli¬ 
gence of those to whom they have addressed it, I think it per¬ 
missible for me to answer them with an argument reduced to 
their own level. 

If I expected, or if I desired, to remain in the Senate, I 
would allow that misrepresentation to pass without even a con¬ 
tradiction; but as I am soon to retire from the public service, 
I feel that I owe it to those who have so long and so generously 
honored me with their confidence to make an official exposure 
of this falsehood, and I have therefore caused to be prepared a 
table which shows every roll call on any aspect of the tariff 
question during our last session, and I now ask unanimous con¬ 
sent to have it printed as a public document, together with a 
recapitulation of it. 

“Mr. President, this table will show, not only that I voted 
against the Republican majority oftener than any other Demo¬ 
crat in the Senate, but it will also show that I voted with the 
Republican majority less than any of my Democratic associates, 
except the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Lea), the Senator from 
South Carolina (Mr. Tillman), and the Senator from Maryland 
(Mr. Rayner), who were detained from our sessions on account 
of sickness, and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Percy), who 
was engaged in the Mississippi campaign. In the following 
votes the names of all Republican Senators are printed in Roman 
text, while the names of all Democratic Senators are printed in 
italics.” 

The tabulated roll calls extend through fifty pages of a public 
document, and it is therefore impracticable to reprint them in 
this magazine; but the recapitulation of those roll calls fully 
answers my purpose, for it gives the final result, and I herewith 
print. 


S 


TABULATED STATEMENT OF THE VOTES OF 
DEMOCRATIC SENATORS. 



Voted 

Voted 




with 

against 

Did 

Total 


Repu'b. 

Repub. 

Not 

Roll 


Majority 

Majority 

Vote 

Calls 

Mr. Bacon . 

... 28 

17 

4 

49 

Mr. Bailey . 

... 7 

36 

6 

49 

Mr. Bankhead ... 

... 22 

16 

11 

49 

Mr. Bryan.. 

... 25 

14 

10 

49 

Mr. Chamberlain. 

... 30 

18 

1 

49 

Mr. Chilton. 

... 28 

17 

4 

49 

Mr. Clark . 

... 11 

27 

11 

49 

Mr. Culberson .. 

... 17 

9 

23 

49 

Mr. Davis . 

... 19 

9 

21 

49 

Mr. Fletcher . 

... 27 

20 

2 

49 

Mr. Foster . 

... 25 

15 

9 

49 

Mr. Gore. 

... 22 

13 

14 

49 

Mr. Hitchcock . 

... 26 

12 

11 

49 

Mr. Johnson, Maine . 

... 26 

20 

3 

49 

Mr. Johnson, Alabama . 

... 27 

19 

3 

49 

Mr. Kern. 

... 26 

20 

3 

49 

Mr. Lea... 

... 1 

7 

41 

49 

Mr. Martin . 

... 30 

19 

0 

49 

Mr. Martine . 

... 27 

22 

0 

49 

Mr. Myers . 

... 29 

18 

2 

49 

Mr. Newlands. 

... 23 

14 

12 

49 

Mr. O'Gorman . 

... 17 

15 

17 

49 

Mr. Overman . 

.... 24 

20 

5 

49 

Mr. Owen . 

... 21 

20 

8 

49 

Mr. Paynter... 

... 19 

14 

16 

49 

Mr. Percy .-.- 

... 1 

1 

47 

49 

Mr. Pomerene . 

... 25 

23 

1 

49 

Mr. Rayner .—. 

... 3 

0 

46 

49 

Mr. Reed. 

... 28 

21 

0 

49 

Mr. Shively . 

... 30 

18 

1 

49 

Mr. Simmons . 

... 11 

32 

6 

49 

Mr. Smith, South Carolina. 

... 29 

14 

6 

49 

Mr. Smith, Maryland . 

... 20 

11 

18 

49 


9 

















































Mr. Stone . 

.... 25 

9 

15 

49 

Mr. Swanson . 

. 28 

20 

1 

49 

Mr. Taylor . 

.. 25 

12 

12 

49 

Mr. Terrell ... 

. 0 

0 

alO 

49 

Mr. Thornton . 

.. 10 

17 

22 

49 

Mr. Tillman . 

0 

0 

49 

49 

Mr. Watson ... 

... 26 

19 

4 

49 

Mr. Williams .. 

. 24 

11 

14 

49 


a—Resigned. 


‘TOLITICAL PREACHING.”—REPLY TO DR. NEVIN. 


The increasing activity of clergymen in our politics, dur¬ 
ing the last few years, has called sharp attention to that ques¬ 
tion, and many thoughtful men who gave no special attention 
to it at first, are now beginning to realize its damage to the 
church, as well as to the Government. This is not the only time 
in our history, when clergymen have been perniciously active. 
But the better sense of the clergymen, themselves, combined 
with the protests of Christians and patriots in that other time, 
saved both our politics and our religion from the baleful effect 
of clerical activity in public affairs. When the clerygmen were 
most active, immediately preceding the war between the States, 
as well as during the war and immediately after it, the Hon. 
Jeremiah Black printed a letter to one of them, which states 
the argument against “Political Preachers” as clearly and as 
convincingly as it can be stated, and that argument ought to be 
carefully read by every thoughtful man in this republic. 

The “political preachers” cannot dismiss what Mr. Black said 
as the utterance of some ungodly critic, for he entertained a 
profound respect for religion. Indeed, his relation with the 
Church was such that he was selected by the Churches to 
answer the attack which Robert G. Ingersoll had made on the 
Christian religion, and his answer to Ingersoll is printed in the 
same volume, which contains his celebrated letter on “Political 
Preaching.” Not only did Jeremiah Black enjoy the confidence 
of church men, but he was revered by all true Democrats. He 
was the Attorney General in the cabinet of James Buchanan, and 
was selected from among all the lawyers in the United States, 
to represent the Democratic party before the Electoral Com- 


IC 















mission, where he made a powerful but unavailing appeal against 
the theft of the Presidency by that body. While Mr. Black’s 
letter is longer than I would ordinarily be willing to print in this 
Magazine, it is of such great excellence that I am sure our 
subscribers will cordially approve its reproduction here. I en¬ 
treat every subscriber to read it carefully and in full. 

York, July 25, 1866. 

To the Rev. Alfred Nevin, D. D.: 

My Dear Sir: 

Your letter addressed to me through the Philadelphia “Eve¬ 
ning Bulletin” disappoints me, because I did not expect it to 
come in that way, and because it does not cover the subject 
in issue between us; but, if I am silent, your friends will say, 
with some show of reason, that you have vindicated “political 
preaching” so triumphantly that all opposition is confounded. 
I must, therefore, speak freely in reply. In doing so, I mean to 
say nothing inconsistent with my great respect for your high 
character in the Church and in the world. The admirable style 
and temper of your own communication deserve to be imitated. 

I fully concede the right you claim for clergymen to select 
their own themes and handle them as they please. You say 
truly that neither lawyers nor physicians, nor any other order 
of men, have the least authority to control you in these particu¬ 
lars. But you will not deny that this is a privilege which may 
be abused. You expressly admit that some clergymen have 
abused it, “and, by doing so, did more than any other class of* 
men to commence and continue the late rebellion.” While, there¬ 
fore, we can assert no power to dictate your conduct, much less 
to force you, we are surely not wrong when we entreat you to 
impose upon yourselves those restrictions which reason and 
revelation have shown to be necessary for the good of the Church 
and the safety of civil society. 

I acknowledge that your commission is a very broad one. 
You must “declare the whole counsel of God,” to the end that 
sinners may be convinced and converts built up in their most 
holy faith. Truth, justice, temperance, humility, mercy, peace, 
brotherly kindness, charity—the whole circle of the Christian 
virtues—must be assiduously taught to your hearers; and, if 
any of them be inclined to the opposite vices, you are to denounce 


11 


them without fear, by private admonition, by open rebuke, or by 
a general delivery of the law which condemns them. You are 
not bound to pause in the performance of this duty because it 
may offend a powerful ruler or a strong political party. Nor 
should you shrink from it when bad men, for their own pur¬ 
poses, approve what you do. Elevate the moral character, en¬ 
lighten the darkness, and purify the hearts of those who are 
under your spiritual charge at all hazards, for this is the work 
which your great Taskmaster has given you to do, and he will 
admit no excuse for neglecting it. 

But this is precisely what the political preacher is not in the 
habit of doing. He directs the attention of his hearers away 
from their own sins to the sins—^real or imputed—of other people. 
By teaching his congregation that they are better than other 
men, he fills their hearts with self-connceit, bigotry, spiritual 
pride, envy, hatred, malice and all uncharitableness. Instead of 
the exhortation, which they need, to take the beam out of their 
own eye, he incites them to pluck the mote from their brother's. 
He does not tell them what they shall do to be saved, but he 
instructs them carefully how they shall act for the destruction 
of others. He rouses and encourages to the utmost of his ability 
those brutal passions which result in riot, bloodshed, spoliation, 
civil war, and general corruption of morals. 

You commit a grievious error in supposing that politics and 
religion are so mingled together that you can not preach one 
without introducing the other. Christ and his apostles kept 
them perfectly separate. They announced the great facts of the 
gospel to each individual whom they addressed. When these 
were accepted, the believer was told to repent and be baptized 
for the remission of his sins, and afterwards to regulate his 
own life by the rules of a pure and perfect morality. They ex¬ 
pressed no preference for one form of government over another. 
They provoked no political revolutions, and they proposed no 
legal reforms. If they had done so, they would have flatly con¬ 
tradicted the declaration that Christ's kingdom was not of this 
world, and Christianity itself would have died out in half a 
century. But they accepted the relations which were created 
by human law, and exhorted their disciples to discharge faith¬ 
fully the duties which arose out of them. Though the laws which 


12 


defined the authority of husbands, parents, masters, and magis¬ 
trates were as bad as human perversity could make them, yet 
the early Christians contented themselves with teaching moder¬ 
ation in the exercise of legal power, and uniformly inculcated 
the virtues of obedience and fidelity upon wives, children, slaves 
and subjects. They joined in no clamors for or against any 
administration, but simply testified against sin before the only 
tribunal which Christ had erected on earth—that is to say the 
conscience of the sinner himself. The vice of political preach¬ 
ing was wholly unknown to the primitive Church. 

It is true that Paul counseled obedience to the government 
of Nero, and I am aware that modern clergymen interpret his 
words as a justification of the doctrine that support of an exist¬ 
ing administration is “part of their allegiance to God.” Several 
synods and other ecclesiastical bodies have solemnly resolved 
something to that effect. But they forget that what Paul advised 
was simple submission, not active assistance, to Nero. The 
Christians of that day did not indorse his atrocities merely be¬ 
cause he was “the administration duly placed in power.” They 
did not go with him to the theatre, applaud his acting, or praise 
him in the churches when he kidnapped their brethren, set fire 
to a city, or desolated a province. Nor did they assist at his 
apotheosis after his death, or pronounce funeral sermons to 
show that he was greater than Scipio, more virtuous that Cato, 
and more eloquent that Cicero. Political preachers would have 
done this, but Paul and Peter did no such thing. 

There is nothing in the Scripture to justify the Church in 
applying its discipline to any member for offenses purely politi¬ 
cal, much less for his mere opinions or feelings on public affairs. 
The clergy are without authority, as they are often without 
fitness, to decide for their congregation what is right or what is 
wrong in the legislation of the country. They are not called 
or sent to propagate any kind of political doctrine. The Church 
and the State are entirely separate and distinct in their origin, 
their object, and the sphere of their action; in so much that the 
organism of one can never be used for any purpose of the other 
without injury to both. 

Do I, therefore, say that the Christian religion is to have 
no influence on the political destiny of man? Far from it. 


13 


Notwithstanding the unfaithfulness of many professors, it has 
already changed the face of human society, and it will yet ac¬ 
complish its mission by spreading peace, independence, truth, 
justice and liberty, regulated by law, ‘‘from the sea to the utter¬ 
most ends of the earth/' But this will be accomplished only by 
reforming and elevating the individuals of whom society is com¬ 
posed—not by exasperating communities against each other, not 
by any alliance with the governments of the world, not by any 
vulgar partnership with politicians to kill and plunder their 
enemies. 

Every time you reform a bad man, and bring his characater 
up to the standard of Christian morality, you make an addition, 
greater or less, to that righteousness which exalteth a nation, 
and subtract an equal from the sin which is a reproach to any 
people. Sometimes a single conversion is extremely important 
in its immediate effect upon the public interests of a whole 
nation. No doubt the acceptance of the truth by Dionysius, the 
Areopagite, had much to do in molding the subsequent laws and 
customs of Athens. The conversion of Constantine was followed 
by instant abrogation of all laws which fettered the conscience. 
In the reign of Theodosius the people of Thessalonica rose 
against the Roman garrison and killed its commander. For this 
act of rebellion the emperor decreed against them the curse of 
an indiscriminate war, in which the guilty and the innocent were 
confounded together in one general slaughter. His spiritual 
“guide, philosopher, and friend" at the time was Ambrose, Arch¬ 
bishop of Milan, who boldy denounced his cruelty, refused to 
give him the sacrament, or even to administer it in his presence, 
compelled him to take his seat among the penitents on the por¬ 
tico of the church, and induced him to humble his diadem in the 
dust for eight months in succession. The conscience of the em¬ 
peror was thoroughly awakened; his subsequent reign was distin¬ 
guished by justice and mercy, the integrity of the empire was 
preserved in peace, and the great “Theodosian Code," the product 
of that bitter repentance, is still read and quoted for its admir¬ 
able union of humanity and policy. Ambrose produced these 
consequences by acting in the true capacity of a Christian min¬ 
ister, for he reformed the criminal by a direct appeal to his 
own heart. A political preacher, in the same circumstances. 


14 


would have inflamed the sanguinary passions of the monarch by 
exaggerating the treason of the Thessalonians, and counseling 
the military execution of all who presumed to sympathize in 
their sufferings. 

You will see, I think, the distinction I would make. A 
gospel preacher addresses the conscience of his hearers for the 
honest purpose of converting them from the error of their 
ways—a political preacher speaks to one community, one party, 
or one sect, and his theme is the wickedness of another. The 
latter effects no religious purposes whatever, but the chances 
are, ninety-nine in a hundred, that he excites the bad passions 
of those who are present, while he slanders the absent and un¬ 
defended. Both classes of preachers frequently speak from the 
same or similar subjects, but they do so with different objects 
and aims. 

I will make my meaning more clear by taking your own 
illustrations. You believe in the first day of the week as a 
Sabbath, and, so believing, your duty undoubtedly is to exhort 
all persons under your charge to observe it strictly; but you 
have no right to preach a crusade against the Jews and Seventh- 
day Baptists, to get intolerant laws enacted against them for 
keeping Saturday as a day of rest. If drunkeness be a sin 
which easily besets your congregation, you may warn them 
against it, and, inasmuch as abstinence is always easier than 
moderation, you should advise them to taste not, touch not, and 
handle not; but your position gives you no authority to provoke 
violent hostilities against tavern-keepers, liquor-dealers, or dis¬ 
tillers. If any of your hearers be ignorant or coarse enough to 
desire more wives than one apiece, you should certainly teach 
them that polygamy is the worst feature of Asiatic manners, in¬ 
consistent with Christianity, and dangerous to domestic hap¬ 
piness; but you can not lawfully urge them to carry fire and 
sword into the territory of the Mormons merely because some 
of the Mormons are in this respect less holy than you. If the 
holding of slaves or bond-servants be a practical question among 
the members of your church, I know of nothing which forbids 
you to teach whatever you conscientiously believe to be true on 
that subject. But in a community where slavery is not only 
unknown but impossible, why should any preacher make it the 


15 


subject of his weekly vituperation? You do not improve the 
religion of the slave-holder by traducing his character, nor mend 
the spiritual condition of your own people by making them 
thirst for the blood of their fellow-men. 

K any person, to whom the service of another is due by the 
laws of the State in which he lives, shall need your instructions 
to regulate his personal conduct toward the slave, you are bound, 
in the first place, to tell him that, as long as that relation exists, 
he should behave with the utmost humanity and kindness; for 
this you have the clear warrant of the apostolic example and pre¬ 
cept. In dealing with such a person you may go as much further 
as your own conscientious interpretation of the Bible will carry 
you. If you are sure that the divine law does, under all cir¬ 
cumstances, make the mere existence of such a relation sinful 
on the part of the master, you should induce him to dissolve it 
by the immediate emancipation of his slaves; for that is truth 
to you which you believe to be true. But where is the authority 
for preaching hatred of those who understand the Scripture 
differently? What privilege can you show for exciting servile 
insurrection? Who gave you the right to say that John Brown 
was better than any other thief or murderer, merely because 
his crimes were committed against pro-slavery men? 

I think the minister, in his pulpit discourses, is forbidden to 
touch at all upon that class of subjects which are purely political; 
such, for instance, as the banking law, tariff, railroad charters. 
State rights, the naturalization laws, and negro suffrage. These 
are questions of mere political expediency; religion takes no 
cognizance of them; they come within the sole jurisdiction of 
the statesmen; and the Church has no more right to take sides 
upon them than the civil government has to use its legislative, 
judicial, or executive power for the purpose of enforcing princi¬ 
ples wholly religious. 

In short, if I am not entirely mistaken, a Christian minister 
has no authority to preach upon any subjects except those in 
which divine revelation has given him an infallible rule of faith 
and practice; and, even upon them, he must speak always for 
the edification of his own hearers, “rightly dividing the word of 
truth,'' so as to lead them in the way of all righteousness. 
When he does more than this he goes beyond his commission. 


16 


he becomes a scurvy politician, and his influence is altogether 
pernicious. 

The use of the clerical office for the purpose of propagating 
political doctrines under any circumstances, or with any excuse, 
is, in my judgment, not only without authority, but it is the 
highest crime that can be committed against the government 
of God or man. Perhaps I ought not to make this broad asser¬ 
tion without giving some additional reasons for it. 

In the first place, it is grossly dishonest. I employ you as 
a minister, pay your salary and build you a church, because I 
have confidence in your theological doctrines, but you may be at 
the same time wholly unfit for my political leader. Now, you 
are guilty of a base fraud upon me, if, instead of preaching 
religion, you take advantage of the position I have given you to 
ventilate your crude and ignorant notions on State affairs. I 
have asked for bread, and you give me a stone; instead of the 
fish I bargained for, you put into my hands a serpent that 
stings and poisons me. 

It destroys the unity of the Church. There is no room for 
rational dispute about the great truths of Christianity, but men 
will never agree upon political subjects, for human government 
is at best but a compromise of selfish interests and conflicting 
passions. When you mix the two together you break the Church 
into fragments, and, instead of ''one Lord, one faith, and one 
baptism,'' you create a thousand warring sects, and substitute 
the proverbial bitterness of the odium theologicum for the 
"charity which thinketh no evil." 

No one will deny that the union of the Church and State 
is always the cause of bad government, perverted religion, and 
corrupt morals. I do not mean merely that legal union which 
exists in European countries. That is bad enough; but you have 
less common-sense than I give you credit for, if you do not 
see that this adulterous connection assumes its most polluting 
form when the Church is voluntarily prostituted by her own 
ministers to a political party in a popular government. 

The evil influence of such connections upon Church and State 
is easily accounted for. Both of them in combination will do 
what either would recoil from if standing alone. A politician, 
backed by the promise of the clergy to sustain him, can safely 


17 


defy honesty and trample the law, for, do what he may, he is 
assured of a clerical support here and of heaven hereafter. The 
clergy, on the other hand, and those who are under their in¬ 
fluence, easily acquire the habit of praising indiscriminately 
whatever is done by their public men. Acting and reacting on 
one another, they go down together in the direction of the pit 
that is bottomless, and both are found to have strange alacrity 
at sinking.” 

No man can serve two masters faithfully, for he must hate 
one if he loves the other. A minister who admires and follows 
such men as those who have lately ruled and ruined this coun¬ 
try must necessarily despise the character of Christ. If he 
glorifies the cruelty, rapacity, and falsehood of his party lead¬ 
ers, he is compelled, by an inflexible law of human nature, to 
''deny the Lord who bought him.” 

The experience of fifteen centuries proves that political 
preachers are the great curse of the world. More than half 
the bloody wars, which, at different periods, have desolated 
Christendom, were produced by their direct instigation; and, 
wherever they have thrust themselves into a contest commenced 
by others, they have always envenomed the strife, and made it 
more cruel, savage, and uncompromising. The religious wars, 
so called, had nothing religious about them except that they 
were hissed up by the clergy. Look back and see if this be 
not true. 

The Arian controversy (the first great schism) was fol¬ 
lowed by wars in which millions of lives were lost. Do you sup¬ 
pose the real quarrel was for the insertion or omission of filioque 
in that part of the creed which describes the procession of the 
Holy Ghost? Did a homorousian slaughter his brother because 
he was a homoiousian? No., it was not the difference of a 
dipththong, but the plunder of an empire that they fought for. 
It was the politics of the Church, not her religion, that infuri¬ 
ated the parties, and converted men into demons. 

The Thirty Years' War in Germany is often supposed to 
have been a fair, stand-up fight between the two leading forms 
of Christianity. It was not so. The religious difference was 
the false pretense of the political preachers for the promotion 
of their own schemes. There was not a sane man on all the 


18 


continent who would have felt himself impelled by motives 
merely religious to murder his neighbor for believing in trans¬ 
substantiation. If proof of this were wanting, it might be 
found in the fact that long before the war ended, the sectarian 
cries were abandoned, and Catholics, as well as Protestants, 
were fighting on both sides. 

It is utterly impossible to believe that the clergy of Eng¬ 
land and Scotland, if they had not been politicians, would have 
thought of waging bloody wars to settle questions of election 
and reprobation, fate, foreknowledge, free-will, and other points 
of metaphysical theology. Nor would they, apart from their 
politics, have encouraged and committed the other horrid crimes 
of which they were guilty in the name of religion. 

Can you think that the Irish were invaded, and conquered, 
and oppressed, and murdered, and robbed for centuries, merely 
because the English loved and believed in the Protestant re¬ 
ligion? I suppose you know that those brutal atrocities were 
carried on for the purpose of giving to political preachers in 
England possession of the churches, cathedrals, glebe-lands, and 
tithes which belonged to the Irish Catholics. The soldier was 
also rewarded for confiscations and plunder. The Church and 
the state hunted in couples, and Ireland was the prey which 
they ran down together. 

Coming to our country, you find Massachusetts and Con¬ 
necticut, in colonial times, under the sole domination of politi¬ 
cal preachers. Their treacherous wars upon the Indians for 
purposes wholly mercenary; their enslaving of white persons, as 
well as red ones, and selling them abroad, or “swapping them 
for blackamoors''; their whipping, imprisoning, and killing 
Quakers and Baptists for their conscientious opinion; and their 
base treatment of such men as Roger Williams and his friends, 
will mark their government through all time as one of the 
cruelest and meanest that ever existed. 

Political preachers have not behaved any better since the 
Revolution than before. About the commencement of the pres¬ 
ent century they were busy in their vile vocation all over New 
England, and continued it for many years. The willful and 
deliberate slanders habitually uttered from the pulpit against 
Jefferson, Madison, and their friends who supported them, were 


19 


a disgrace to human nature. The immediate effect of this was 
the Yankee plot to secede from the Union, followed by corrupt 
combinations with a foreign enemy to betray the liberties of the 
country. Its remoter consequences are seen in the shameless 
rapacity and bitter malignity which, even at this moment, are 
howling for the property and blood of an unarmed and defense¬ 
less people. 

You and I both remember the political preaching which 
ushered in and supported the reign of the Know-Nothings, 
Blood-Tubs, and Plug-Uglies; when Maria Monk was a saint, 
and Joe Barker was mayor of Pittsburg; when pulpits resounded 
every Sunday with the most injurious falsehoods against Catho¬ 
lics ; when the public mind was debauched by the inculcation of 
hypocrisy and deception; when ministers met their political 
allies in sworn secrecy to plot against the rights of their fellow- 
citizens. You can not forget what came of this—riot, murder, 
church-burning, lawless violence all over the land, and the sub¬ 
jugation of several great States to the political rule of a party 
destitute alike of principles and capacity. 

I could easily prove that those clerical politicians, who have 
tied their churches to the tail of the Abolition party, are crim¬ 
inal on a grander scale than any of their predecessors. But I 
forbear, partly because I have not time, and partly because it 
may, for aught I know, be a sore subject with you. I would 
not excite your wrath, but rather “provoke you to good works.” 

Apart from the general subject there are two or three 
special ideas expressed in your letter from which I venture to 
dissent. 

You think that, though a minister may speak from the pulpit 
on politics, he ought not to indicate what party he belongs to. 
It strikes me that, if he has a party, and wants to give it 
ecclesiastical aid or comfort, he should boldly avow himself to 
be what he is, so that all men may know him. Sincerity is the 
first of virtues. It is bad to be a wolf, but a wolf in sheep’s 
clothing is infinitely worse. 

You represent the Church as an unfinished structure, and 
the state as its scaffolding. I think the Church came perfect 
from the hands of its divine Architect—built upon a rock, es¬ 
tablished, finished, complete—and every one who comes into 


20 


it by the right door will find a mansion prepared for him. It 
needs no scaffold. Its founder refused all connection with human 
government for scaffolding or any other purpose. 

You say (in substance) that, without sometimes ^taking 
political subjects, a minister is in danger of falling into a “vague, 
indefinite, and non-committal style,” which will do no good, and 
bring him no respect. The gospel is not vague, indefinite, or 
non-committal upon the subjects of which it takes jurisdic¬ 
tion, and upon them you may preach as loudly as you please. 
But I admit that in times of great public excitement—an im¬ 
portant election or civil war—men listen impatiently to the 
teachings of faith and repentance. A sermon which tells them 
to do justice, love, mercy, and walk humbly before God, is not 
an entertainment to which they willingly invite themselves. 
At such a time a clergyman can vastly increase his personal 
consequence, and win golden opinions from his audience, by 
pampering their passions with a highly seasoned discourse on 
politics. The temptation to gratify them often becomes too 
strong for the virtue of the preacher. I fear that you yourself 
are yielding to it. As a mere layman I have no right to advise a 
doctor of divinity, but I hope I am not over-presumptuous when 
I warn you against this specious allurement of Satan. All 
thoughts of putting the gospel aside because is does not suit 
the depraved tastes of the day, and making political harangues 
to win popularity in a bad world, should be sternly trampled 
down as the suggestions of that Evil One “who was a liar and 
a murderer from the beginning.” 

Faithfully yours, etc.. 

Copy. S. BLACK. 


WILSON, WASHINGTON AND LINCOLN. 


After the adjournment of Congress, the Hon. Lucian W. 
Parrish stopped off in Dallas, on his way home from Washing¬ 
ton, and while here gave an interview to the Dallas News, which 
reads as follows: 

Lucian W. Parrish of Henrietta, member of Congress from 
the Thirteenth District, was in Dallas Wednesday, en route to 
his home in Henrietta. He left Washington just after the in¬ 
auguration last Friday. “Despite all that has been said against 


21 




him, Woodrow Wilson comes out of the presidency with a 
record that will stand with the greatest of our Presidents, 
Washington and Lincoln,” Mr. Parrish said, “and it will not be 
a great while before the nation and the world will generally 
realize how great has been his work and how well he filled the 
need in the critical days of the world war. Mr. Harding, it is 
generally believed, will be a political President, and, therefore, 
proibably a popular President, which is all right in peace times, 
but such a President could never have met the emergencies 
which Woodrow Wilson has handled so well for his country.” 

That is a curious statement to come from a Democratic Con¬ 
gressman. I can understand how a Republican would say that 
Washington and Lincoln were the “greatest of our Presidents’’; 
but I cannot understand how a Democrat could entertain or ex¬ 
press that opinion. We have always believed that Washington 
and Lincoln were great men, but we have not believed that they 
were our greatest Presidents. We have always assigned the 
first place among our Presidents to Jefferson, and we have con¬ 
sidered Madison, Monroe and Polk as his worthy successors. If 
Washington and Lincoln were our greatest Presidents, then their 
administrations must have been our wisest. No Democrat ever 
believed that, and no man who believes it has a right to call 
himself a Democrat; because neither Washington nor Lincoln 
administered this government according to Democratic prin¬ 
ciples. Washington was a Federalist, and Lincoln was a Repub¬ 
lican. 

To say that “the record of Mr. Wilson stands with the records 
of Washington and Lincoln,” admits precisely what I have con¬ 
tended throughout the last eight years. I have been saying 
that Mr. Wilson did not apply Democratic principles to the con¬ 
duct of our government, and for saying that, I have been traduced 
by his partisans; but here comes a Democratic Congressman, 
who cordially supported the Wilson administration, and asserts 
that it will “stand with the administrations of Washington and 
Lincoln” in our history. That is precisely the reason that I 
could not support it, and that is precisely why I felt it my duty, 
as a Democrat, to criticise it. If it could be fairly said that the 
Wilson administration stands with the adminstrations of Jef¬ 
ferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson and Polk, then I would have 
given it my cordial support; but, being a Democrat, I could not 
support an administration that will stand with the administra¬ 
tions of Washington, the Federalist, and Lincoln, the Republican. 


22 




T he circulation of this magazine must be brought to a 
point where the good that may be done will be com¬ 
mensurate with the work that is being done. With 
that end in view, the business management has arranged 
a plan whereby enterprising parties in any community can 
receive authority from this office to solicit subscriptions, 
and such solicitor wilh receive for his trouble an amount 
which will adequately compensate him. 

We therefore call upon all friends of this magazine who 
favor the purpose for which it was formed, to recommend 
to us parties who are competent and capable to handle this 
matter. A letter to the address given below, with the re¬ 
quest for information, will be given prompt attention. 

THE DEMOCRATIC REVIEW 

808 Great Southern Life Building 




•5‘’!^'J^I*«5**J**5*^*^*H**5*^*M*^*5*^*«5*^*^*‘J* 

± I 

I t 


y/ff/yy;■ 



O^untfr ijnkl 


An institution catering 
to the public* Known 
as the San Antonio 
home of all Texas* 


PERCY TYRRELL, Manager 



















A Safe Investment 

When you build Qyality should 
have preference over cost, be¬ 
cause the difference for high 
grade lumber is small compared 
with additional service rendered. 

Your local dealer can furnish 
“Kirby” stock of “Kirby quality” 

Ask him for I 

Long and Short Leaf 

Yellow Pine 

Manufactured by \ 

Kirby Lumber Company 


KIRBY-BONNER 

LUMBER COMPANY 

SALES AGENTS = HOUSTON. TEXAS 


SHeegog Printing Co., Dallas 






















t* 


THE 

DEMOCRATIC 

REVIEW 


Owned, Controlled, and Edited By 

JOSEPH W. BAILEY 

VOL. 1 MAY, 1921 No. 5 


0 resist the further encroachment of the Fed¬ 
eral Government on the sovereignty of these^ 
States, and thus help to perpetu^tg^ t]|is \ 
Republic as our Fathers established it ^ to j 
oppose the further abridgement of individpaj rights, * 
and thus help to preserve for ourselves ihA our 
posterity the inestimable blessings of civil liberty; 
to support our constitutions, both State and Fede¬ 
ral, in all of their provisions, and thus help to 
limit the power of those who are chosen to govern 
us; to contend against the progressive paternalism 
which is rapidly reducing us to a state of govern¬ 
mental pupilage, and thus help to restore that self- 
control without which no people can ever be cap¬ 
able of self-government; to defend the right of pri¬ 
vate property, and thus help to assure those who 
are industrious enough to work, and prudent 
enough to save, that they shall enjoy the fruits of 
their industry and their prudence; to combat 
Socialism in every form, and thus help to maintain 
an orderly government in our country,—are the 
principal purposes which this Magazine is intended 
to serve. 





















CONTENTS 


The Third Article of Our Faith. 
Socialism, a Present Danger. 
The Cotton Situation. 

Railroad Rates and Wages. 


Entered as second class matter, March 10, 1921, at the Post 
Office at Dallas, Texas, under the Act of 
March 3, 1879. 



THE 

DEMOCRATIC 

REVIEW 


Published Monthly. Dallas, Texas. $1.50 Per Annum. 


THE THIRD ARTICLE OF OUR FAITH 

“We believe in the wise arrangement which reserves to each 
State in this Union the exclusive right to regulate, so far as any 
government may properly regulate, the habits and occupations of 
its own people; and we are opposed to all measures which will, in 
purpose or effect, deprive these States of that right.” (Ft. Worth 
Declaration of Principles, Paragraph 3.) 

The principle there declared has been so long accepted as a 
fundamental of Democracy, that it would seem unnecessary to 
present any argument in support of it to Democrats, and it 
would be, if all the men who call themselves “Democrats” were 
entitled to be considered such. But in this time, when Feder¬ 
alists are calling themselves Democrats, and Democratic leaders 
are advocating the most undemocratic measures, it is useful that 
we should recur to the first principles. No man can know how 
this government ought to be administered unless he understands 
the principles on which it was founded; for it is as true of the 
machinery of a government as it is of machinery in the material 
world, that it cannot be successfully operated except in accordance 
with the principles upon which it .was constructed. Every man 
with common sense knows that if mechanics were to construct an 
engine upon a certain principle, and an engineer should attempt 
to operate that engine according to a different principle, disaster 
would result; but that is not more certain than it is that disaster 
will come to any country whose government has been organized 
by statesmen on certain principles, when politicians endeavor to 
conduct that government on different principles. 

Fortunately for the cause of liberty and justice, a limited at¬ 
tention to the history of our country will enable any man to trace 
the basic principles of our government, and it does not require 


3 





any profound learning to comprehend them. All that any private 
citizen needs to know about them can be stated in less than three 
pages by any man who has carefully studied the proceedings of 
the Convention which framed our Federal Constitution. That 
Convention was originally convoked for the purpose of revising 
the Articles of Confederation, and not for the purpose of writing 
a new Constitution; but the defects of the Government which 
existed then were so obviously incurable that the delegates re¬ 
solved to abolish it and establish a new cne. That much having 
been determined, the distribution of governmental powers became 
their most delicate task, and every member of that Convention knew 
that whether the people would reject or accept the result of their 
labors, depended upon the wisdom with which they solved that 
particular question. After three months of constant and earnest 
deliberation, a solution was found in delegrating to the Federal 
Government the control of our foreign and interstate relations, 
leaving with the states the exclusive control of their internal af¬ 
fairs. 

One of the principal obiects in organizing the Federal Govern¬ 
ment was to protect us against foreign aggression, by combining 
the strength of all m the defense of each; and as every state 
would be required to perform its part in any war with a foreign 
nation, it was plainly wise to vest in a Government representing 
all of the states exclusive jurisdiction over every question which 
might eventuate in war. All of the states might cheerfully go to 
war in defense of any one state; but they could not be fairly 
asked to consent that one state should have the right to declare a 
war in which all of the states must engage. As each would be 
called on to furnish its quota of men and money, the right of 
each to a voice in deciding the question of peace or war 'was 
recognized. The wisdom of the arrangement is manifest. 

Another purpose in organizing the Federal Government was 
to prevent strife between the states. If every state had been left 
to decide for itself all questions between it and another state, with¬ 
out an impartial tribunal to judge between them, serious conse¬ 
quences would be unavoidable. The boundary dispute now pend¬ 
ing between Oklahoma and Texas illustrates that danger. Our 
Supreme Court, and our Court of Criminal Appeals, had both decid¬ 
ed that the northern boundary line of Texas extends to the middle 
of Red River, and I think they were right; but the Supreme 
Court of Arkansas had decided that the northern boundary line of 
Texas extends only to the south bank of Red River, and the 
executive authorities of Oklahoma adopted the Arkansas view. 
Without some impartial arbiter to decide the question, Texas 
would not have yielded her claim, nor would Oklahoma have 


4 


yielded hers; and thus a conflict of opinion might have culmi¬ 
nated in a conflict of arms. But with a Federal Government poss¬ 
essing the power to decide the question through its Supreme 
Court, the decision will be accepted by both states without any 
serious impairment of the good will which should exist between 
neighboring commonwealths. To have devised a method for the 
amicable settlement of disputes between states was an achieve¬ 
ment of the highest value. 

But conceding to the Convention all which can be claimed for 
its wisdom in delegating to the Federal Government the control 
of our foreign and interstate relations, it acted with even greater 
wisdom in reserving to each state the full control of its local 
affairs. The people of each state have an inherent right to be gov¬ 
erned, in respect to their purely local affairs, by laws made espe¬ 
cially for them, and made by representatives whom they have 
chosen and who are amenable to their will; for it is not possible 
that any one law can be applied to such affairs in every state 
without friction and injustice. A law providitijt: for mixed srhools 
might be entirely acceptable to the people of Kansas, but it 
would be very obnoxious to the people of Texas; and if both 
states were governed by the same law on that subject, Kansas 
would be compelled to establish separate schools for blacks and 
whites, or Texas would be compelled to admit blacks and whites 
into the same schools. 

The Constitution, as drafted by the Convention, secured to 
every state the full right of self-government, but it did so by in¬ 
ference—an irresistible inference, but still an inference,—and the 
people were not .satisfied with that. They demanded an explicit 
declaration on tnat precise question : and the amendmei':‘-s sub¬ 
mitted by the first Congress included one distinctly declaring 
that all powers not delegated by the Constitution to the General 
Government, nor prohibited to it by the states, were reserved to 
the states or to the people respectively. The amendment became 
a part of our Democratic creed, and fidelity to it was made a Demo¬ 
cratic test of fitness for every important public office In that 
amendment, the doctrine of States Rights found its first formal 
and authoritative expression. 

From the organization of this Republic in 1789 mitil 1863, 
twelve amendments to the Cmstitution were adopted, hut none 
of them abridged the right of any state. Eleven were designed 
specifically to limit the power of the General Government and the 
twelfth merely changed the method of voting in the Electoral 
College for the President. For more than seventy years no pro¬ 
posal to transfer any right reserved by tiie states to th^ Federal 


5 


Government was ever considered, and during all that time no 
such proposal would have been supported by a respectable num¬ 
ber of Democrats. Indeed, if a Democrat had then advised his 
countrymen to surrender the rights of these states, he would have 
forfeited forever the confidence of his political associates. 

The attitude of the Democratic party was thoroughly exem¬ 
plified in dealing with the fourteenth amendment. Not a single 
Democrat in the United States voted for that amendment. No 
Democrat in the House of Representatives or in the Senate voted 
in favor of submitting it; and no Democrat in any State Legisla¬ 
ture voted to ratify it. The Democratic party, as one man, set its 
face like flint against it; because it limited, in some important 
respects, the power of these states. The same was substan¬ 
tially true of the fifteenth amendment; and it was left for these 
last ten years to develop within the Democratic party a school of 
politicians who disavow the wisdom of the fathers, and assert the 
right of other states to participate in the purely domestic affairs 
of Texas. 

Why should Kansas have any vote in regulating the habits 
and occupations of the people of Texas? Our habits and our 
occupations can not injure the health, nor corrupt the morals, or 
disturb the peace of Kansas; and the people of that state should 
have no voice in determining matters which concern only the 
people of this state. Twenty years ago no man would have con¬ 
troverted that proposition: but we have fallen on a day when our 
«o-called leaders in this state will not assent to any proposition 
until they first consider how it might affect the prohibition ques¬ 
tion. To them it seems more important to prevent the use of 
whisky than to preserve the sovereignty of the states; and they 
will unhesitatingly sacrifice the right of local self-government in 
order to prohibit the sale of liquor. I favored prohibition by the 
state when many of those who are now so clamorous for na¬ 
tional prohibition were opposed to our local option system, and 
were proclaiming that it was an invasion of our personal liberty 
to prohibit the sale of liquor by precincts or by counties. 

I believe now, and I have always believed, that no man has a 
right to establish and conduct a business which produces crime, 
disease and pauperism; and whether such a business should be 
regulated or prohibited, depends on the extent of the evil which 
it produces. If not great, it should be regulated; if great, it 
should be prohibited. But who shall decide that question for 
Texas? Shall it be decided by those who live outside of this 
state, and are, therefore, not affected, or shall it be decided by the 
people who live in the state, and are, therefore, immediately con- 


6 


cerned? To that question only one answer can be made. I shall 
always maintain the right of Texas to prohibit the sale of liquor 
in this state, if our people choose to do so; but I shall always 
deny the right of other states to decide that question for us, I 
follow the logic of my principles, and I would no more admit the 
right of Kansas to say that we shall prohibit the sale of liquor 
in Texas than I would admit the right of New York to say that 
we shall not prohibit the sale of liquor in Texas. 

The right of each state to regulate, so far as any government 
may regulate, the habits and occupations of its people, rests upon 
the theory that every intelligent people can govern themselves in 
respect to such matters better than any other people can govern 
them. If that theory is not correct, our plan of government was 
conceived in error, and ought to be abandoned; but if that theory 
is correct, we should adhere to the doctrine of state rights, and 
apply it absolutely to every question which arises. It must be 
applied to all questions, or else, in the end, it will not be applied 
to any question. If some waive it on the prohibition question, 
others may waive it on the marriage and divorce question, or on 
the intra-state commerce question, or on the public road ques¬ 
tion, or on the public school question; and when it has been 
waived by each group which happens to favor some particular 
measure, it will cease to be a rule of political conduct. Men may 
then say truthfully—not ^‘that it was shot to death at Appomat¬ 
tox” but—that it was voted to death by those who profess to 
believe in it. 


SOCIALISM, A PRESENT DANGER 

Twenty years ago I began to warn the people of this state 
against the growth and the menace of socialism; but they seemed 
to think that I was “imagining vain things,” and they passed my 
warning unheeded. Within the last few years, however, many of 
those who would not then stop to consider what I was saying, 
have realized that I did not overstate the danger of our situation. 
They have seen the socialistic movement grow, under different 
names and in different forms, until they now hear socialism pro¬ 
claimed as democracy; and men who would have resented, almost 
with violence, a few years ago being called socialists, have “pro¬ 
gressed” to the point where they will tell us that “socialism is 
beneficient in many respects.” Even ministers of the gospel de¬ 
scribe themselves as Christian socialists, although socialism has 
always been the implacable foe of the Church. They mistake the 
socialist desire to meddle with everybody’s business for a desire 


7 



to help everybody. If the “progress’’ which those men have 
made in the last ten years is duplicated in the next ten years, 
they will become avowed socialists. 

Before the people of this country go any further in their en¬ 
couragement of socialism, they ought to inform themselves fully 
about what it has done, and is still doing, for the people of 
Europe. In that part of the world socialists have been dissemi¬ 
nating their pernicious doctrines for more than fifty years, and 
they had made such progress that when the recent war came on 
them, socialism was dominating every great country of Europe. 
What does their experience with it teach us to expect of it? 
Within the last month, Mr. Lloyd George, the Prime Minister of 
Great Britain, delivered a speech which, the man and the question 
considered, should arrest the attention of every thinking man. Mr. 
George began his public career advocating nearly all of the 
“isms” which, when combined, make socialism; but he now seems 
to realize his mistake, and he is beseeching the men whom he has 
heretofore stigmatized as “selfish conservatives” to help him 
rescue his country. A part of his speech was reported by the pa¬ 
pers of this country as follows: 

By The Associated Press. 

London, March 23.—A bitter attack on Socialism was made 
by Prime Minister Lloyd George in a speech at a luncheon 
today of “the new members of the coalition group,” as the par¬ 
ticipants in the luncheon party were styled. 

“The military dangers which united the parties have dis¬ 
appeared,” said Mr. Lloyd George, “but greater, more in¬ 
sidious, more permanent dangers, still confront us. The great 
peril is the rise to power of a new party with new purposes 
of the most subversive character. 

“It calls itself ‘labor.’ It is really Socialism. It is tearing 
the parties to pieces on its way to tearing society to pieces. 
Those who are inclined to agree with Mr. Asquith and Lord 
Bentinck that the Labor party is a bogy should read the 
Socialist and labor papers for a week. 

“Socialism is fighting to destroy everything that the great 
prophets and leaders of both parties—Unionist and Liberal— 
have labored for generations to upbuild. Parliamentary insti¬ 
tutions are as much menaced as private interests, and the 
rule of class organization is to be substituted for them. 

“Those still inclined to regard the Labor party as a bogy 
should look at the bye-elections of 1920 and 1921. The addi¬ 
tion of 4 per cent would put the Socialists into the majority, 
and there is a margin of 15 to 20 per cent who do not vote. 

“Suppose that by the working up of grievances the coalition 
was defeated and the Socialists won a majority. They would 


8 


not seek to remove those grievances, but would endeavor to 
root out the whole system of society.” 

The Prime Minister asked those who realized the danger 
to close their ranks. They must take all possible steps, he 
said, to instruct the electors who must at no distant date 
decide the issue. 

The governmental policies which have brought England to the 
critical condition thus portrayed by Lloyd George were the same, 
in all respects, as those which have been urged upon us with 
such persistence during the last few years. In that country those 
policies were called “liberal,” while in this country they are called 
“progressive;” but the only difference between them is this slight 
one in the name, and the argument advanced in behalf of them 
has been precisely the same in both countries. That argument 
has, of course, been presented in various forms, but they are all 
reducible to this: That it is the duty of the Government to help 
those who can not help themselves. Properly limited, I concur in 
that argument. I believe that the Government should establish 
institutions for the afflicted, and make suitable provisions for 
those who have been disabled in its service; but I also believe 
that every man who is clothed in his right mind and able to 
work, should support himself without calling on the Government 
to help him, and these “progressive” statesmen will not agree to 
that limitation. 

If the Government could give something to one man without 
taking anything from another man, it would be wickedly foolish 
to do so; because governmental bounties enfeeble the self-reliance 
of those who receive them, and whatever tends to sap the inde¬ 
pendence of its people must, in the end, injure any government 
like ours. The only men on whom a Republic can safely rely 
in a time of stress are the men who rely on themselves at all 
times. But if the Government could give without direct injury 
to the recipients, and without indirect injury to itself, it can not 
give without a gross injustice; because it cannot give to some 
without taking from others. No Government produces or can 
produce anything; and, therefore, what it gives to some it must 
take from others. The politicians of this day know that as well 
as I do, as is evidenced by the defense which they make of their 
extravagant appropriations. It is not uncommon to hear them 
defend the unnecessary expenditures of public money upon the 
ground that it is taken from the rich and spent with the poor 
That is incipient Socialism. 

Socialists are wise enough to know that it is necessary to “pre¬ 
pare the public mind for Socialism,’' and they act acordingly. 


9 


They never propose, in the beginning, that the property of A. 
shall be transferred to B.; but they are content to tax the prop¬ 
erty of A. and spend the proceeds for the benefit of B. Both 
come to the same thing, at last; but the Socialists know that 
some men who could not be induced to confiscate private prop¬ 
erty, will, for one reason or another, support onerous taxation, 
and hence they adopt that as their initial method. When Con¬ 
gress creates these useless offices it does not do so for the pur¬ 
pose of making the tax payers support the office-holders. With 
the average Congressman the end sought is to provide places for 
dependent partisans, and taxation is merely a means of paying 
the salaries. It is not so, however, with the Socialist; he is not 
particularly interested in the office-holders and he gives to impe¬ 
cunious politicians as a means of taking from prosperous business 
men. 

For another and a very cogent reason, the Socialists are will¬ 
ing to increase the office-holders. They know that the more 
office holders that we have, the more the operations of the Gov¬ 
ernment will be extended, and the more the operations of the 
Government are extended, the more individual effort will be 
restricted. It may seem to some people that I am credit¬ 
ing the Socialists with greater foresight than they posses; but 
it does not require any great wisdom to understand that the 
individual can not compete against the Government, and any man 
who has studied the history of the world knows that when the 
Government enters any field of activity it is only a question of 
time until the individual must withdraw from it. The Socialists 
understand many things which are not so plain as that; and in 
promoting their peculiar views, they can see around the corner, 
while many very intelligent business men can not see straight 
ahead of them. 

It would astound the average man to know how successfully 
the Socialists have been using the “Progressives’" to smooth the 
way for Socialism, and they have “progressed” to a point where 
we are now confronted by a direct proposal to use the property 
of some for the benefit of others. That proposition comes from 
an influential Republican United States Senator; and it is that 
the Federal Government shall provide homes for the homeless, 
which means nothing more nor less than that the property of 
men who have saved something shall be mortgaged to provide 
homes for men who have not saved anything. The Government 
will not, of course, require each owner to write out and sign a 
mortgage on his property; but it might as well do so, for its taxes 
are a lien superior to any mortgage which the owner could give. 


10 


In Texas, the home can not be subjected to a mortgage cren 
though the wife should join the husband in executing it; and the 
husband can not convey the home unless the wife joins him in the 
deed; but the Government can sell their home over the protest of 
both husband and wife, in order to collect the tax which has been 
levied on it to build a home for some one else. 

They tell us that every home-owner is a patriot, and I will not 
challenge that statement; provided it is not intended to imply that 
those who do not own their homes are not patriots. I know 
many honorable and patriotic men who do not own the houses in 
which they live, and I will never endorse any implication against 
their integrity or their patriotism. Indeed, I do not hesitate to 
say that the man who rents a house and pays for the use of it 
with the fruits of his own toil, is a better citizen than the man 
who lives in a house which other men have been taxed to buy for 
him. A patriot must love his country and no man can love a 
country which he knows to be unjust. Even the beneficiaries of a 
Government’s injustice must be distrustful of it; because they 
must know that a government which will practice injustice 
against others for their benefit, today, will practice an injustice 
against them for the benefit of others, tomorrow. I sincerely 
wish that every American citizen could have a home of his own, 
but I want him to build it, or buy it, for himself; and I express 
infinitely more respect for the poor when I insist that they shall 
take care of themselves than does the man who would compel 
others to take care of them. 

If these “progressive” policies involved no more than excess¬ 
ive taxation and a waste of the public money, we could measure 
the injury they would do us in dollars and cents, and would 
regard them with less aversion; but, unfortunately, they involve 
much more than high taxes and extravagant appropriations. 
They exhibit the same state of mind that has preceded the triumph 
of Socialism in other countries. They have already introduced 
dangerous departures from the settled principles of Government, 
and their advocates are now proposing others. Principles which 
our fathers taught us to cherish as the very essentials of a free 
Government, and which these radicals themselves once professed 
to believe in, are now derided, and men who adhere to them arc 
denounced as enemies of the public welfare. Under the pretense 
of reforming people, these “Progressives” are revolutionizing the 
Government; and they will lead us through Paternalism to So¬ 
cialism, exactly ..as their political counterparts have done the Eng¬ 
lish people. Shall we sit idly down and permit them to bring 


11 


that unspeakable disaster upon our country? We can prerent it, 
if we will make an effort to do so. 

A large majority of our people still believe in a representative 
democracy; in a written constitution; in the unimpaired police 
power of the States; in the liberty of the individual; and in the 
right of private property. I do not think I am mistaken in what 
I have just said, and I know I am not mistaken when I say an 
overwhelmingly majority of our people do not believe in the 
"'progressive” vagaries. The issues and the result of the last 
Presidential election warrant me in saying that. The Democratic 
candidate everywhere proclaimed himself a “Progressive” of 
“Progressives,” and assailed the republican candidate as a “re¬ 
actionary.” The declaration of Mr. Cox was iterated and re¬ 
iterated by all the Democratic orators and editors; but when the 
votes were counted the Republican “reactionary” had received a 
majority of more than seven million over the “Progressive” of 
“Progressives.” That circumstance should be enough to convince 
every thinking man that these “progressive policies” have been 
forced upon us by an active minority, which has thus far pre¬ 
vailed only because the majority was inactive. Will that majority 
remain inactive, and suffer itself to be controlled by an active 
minority? Certainly not, if it can be made to realize that Social¬ 
ism is a pressing danger to our country. 


THE COTTON SITUATION 

The prosperity of the South is so inseparably interwoven with 
the production and price of cotton that every man in this section, 
whether banker, merchant, lawyer, laborer, or farmer, is per¬ 
sonally interested in the situation which now confronts our cot¬ 
ton-growers. During the past year the consumption of cotton 
has been much less than normal, thus leaving a surplus much 
more than normal, and reducing the price so low as to threaten 
us all with bankruptcy. The consumption of cotton this year will 
undoubtedly be larger than it was last year; but the increase will 
not be sufficient to absorb the present surplus, and consequent¬ 
ly we can not expect any great improvement in the price unless 
we reduce the supply by some other means. Can this be done? 
I think it can. 

A large part of the surplus now on hand consists of a very 
low grade of cotton, and we should address ourselves at once to 
the question of eliminating it from the available supply. Most of 
it could have been sold last year, if a proper effort had been 


12 



made to do so; but that proper effort was not made, and it will 
profit us nothing now to complain at those who ought to have 
made it, but did not. 1 have tried to think out a feasible plan 
for taking it off the market, and the only one which can be pur¬ 
sued with an absolute certainty of success is to burn it. That is 
a drastic remedy; but it is the only one, in my judgment, which 
is open to us. 

Two objections to my plan suggest themselves. The first is 
that it would be a criminal waste for us to burn cotton at a time 
when people of the Old World are wearing clothes made out of 
paper, because they can not afford to buy clothes made out of 
cotton; and the second is, that we can not afford the loss which 
the burning of four million bales of cotton would entail upon us. 
My answer to the first objection is, that the people who are wear¬ 
ing paper clothes in the Old World will not be any worse off if 
we burn this low grade cotton; because they are not able to buy 
it. My answer to the second objection is, that if we would burn 
that four million bales of low grade cotton, the price of cotton 
would immediately advance, and the value added to what re¬ 
mained would greatly exceed the value of what we had destroyed. 

This low grade cotton could not, if forced on the market now, 
be sold for $10.00 a bale, and the longer we keep it, the less it 
will be worth; because cotton of that grade constantly deterior¬ 
ates. The destruction of it, therefore, would mean a loss of 
$40,000,000; but with that four million bales removed from the 
market, the value of the remaining six million bales would be in¬ 
creased more than $100,000,000, thus netting a clear profit of 
more than $60,000,000 on the operation. Nor is that all. If those 
four million bales of low grade cotton are not disposed of in some 
way they will affect the price of next year’s crop almost as 
injuriously as they have affected the price of this year’s crop, and 
make a deplorable situation still more deplorable. 

But how, it will be asked, can this plan be carried out, if 
those interested should deem it wise? That presents a difficulty, 
but not an insurmountable one. Much of that cotton is held by 
buyers; much of it is held by the farmers; and the banks are 
carrying it, both for the buyers and the farmers. Every buyer 
and every farmer could well contribute one-fourth of his holding 
to be burned, and the banks could well release it for that pur¬ 
pose; because the three-fourths left would be worth more than all 
of it is now. Therefore, the owners would lose nothing, and the 
security of the banks would be improved rather than impaired. 
With that done, other people could well be asked to buy some of 
that cotton and consign it to the fire. A few years ago our 


13 


slogan was: “Buy a Bale of Cotton/' Our slogan now ought to 
be: “Burn a Bale of Cotton." 

The bitter experience through which our people are now pass¬ 
ing should teach them a valuable lesson, and will not be without 
its compensation, if they will take that lesson to their hearts. 
The farmers of the South can live in greater comfort and at a 
smaller expense than any other people in the world, if only they 
will make up their minds to live as much as possible on what 
they produce at home. By pursuing that course, they can prac¬ 
tically insure themselves against such an over-supply of cotton as 
will reduce its price below the cost of production, and at the 
same time live much better than they are now living. Every 
farmer in the South should set aside an acre of ground for his 
garden, and cultivate that first of all others. He should next 
set aside two or three acres as a truck patch for his roasting 
ears, his potatoes, his melons, and other products which are really 
luxuries for the table. After the garden and truck patch should 
come the small field to provide for his cows, his hogs, his poultry 
and his work stock. 

The milk and butter, the chickens and eggs, the hogs and tur¬ 
keys will not only make the farmer’s table all that any man could 
crave; but they would reduce his store account, and the surplus 
could be sold to pay for those few things which his farm will 
not raise. With all of these properly provided for, the farm then 
should be divided into four parts, with one part devoted to 
wheat, another to oats, a third to corn, and the fourth to cotton. 
In some counties wheat can not be grown to an advantage, and 
where that is true the farm would have to be divided into three 
parts. Under that division, he could utilize almost every day in 
the year, and he would be able to sell something almost every 
month in the year. As long as our farmers devote their land and 
labor exclusively to the cultivation of cotton, they will over¬ 
supply the market in good seasons; and when the bad seasons 
come, a poor crop will make an insufficient return for their labor, 
and the use of their land. Whether the seasons are good or bad, 
the farmer who cultivates only cotton can not use a large part of 
the year to the best advantage; and few men can prosper, if they 
work only half of their time. By cultivating several crops, a 
farmer insures a better price for his products, reduces the pos¬ 
sibility of a complete failure, and makes it more nearly certain 
that he can utilize all of his time. 


14 


RAILROAD RATES AND WAGES 

The railroads of this country have benefited it in many ways; 
they have helped us to build up our waste places, and to develop 
our resources to an extent which would have been impossible 
without them; they have increased the wealth of many, and 
added to the comfort of all. But they are not entitled to rob us 
because they have helped to enrich us; and their present charges 
are nothing less than a robbery. No man can justify either the 
freight rates or the passenger fares which the railroads are now 
exacting from the American people. Indeed, the railroad mana¬ 
gers themselves do not attempt to justify them; they merely at¬ 
tempt to excuse them upon the ground that the wages they are 
compelled to pay their employees render such charges necessary. 
That excuse can not be accepted, and it will not be accepted, by 
intelligent men. The railroads have no right to make exorbitant 
charges against the public in order that they may pay unreason¬ 
able wages to their employees. 

No sound minded man desires that those who work for the 
railroads be paid less than fair wages; but only selfish wage- 
earners, or demagogic politicians, believe or pretend to believe 
that railroad wages should remain as they were, while the price 
of every commodity is being reduced. When prices of all pro¬ 
ducts and consequently the price of living, increased, the people 
were willing that wages should be correspondingly increased; but 
with the recession in the price of commodities, and a consequent 
decrease in the cost of living, they have a right to demand that 
wages shall be correspondingly reduced. A just relation between 
wages and the price of commodities is maintained in all other 
employments, and why not in this particular employment? Why 
should a man working for a railroad be paid double or treble the 
wages received by men engaged in other useful pursuits? 

At the present prices of agricultural products, the farm la¬ 
borer can not possibly earn more than $40.00 per month, and what 
he buys should not be increased in cost to him in order that 
the railroad may pay his brother $150.00 per month, or more. 
Certainly nobody will claim that the railroad laborer is more use¬ 
ful to his country than the farm laborer; and certainly nobody 
will contend that railroad labor is more irksome than farm 
labor, for the reverse is true. The hours of farm labor are longer, 
and the drudgery of it is greater. The negro porters on our pas¬ 
senger trains are receiving an average of more than $180.00 per 
month. I made that statement in the campaign last year, and the 
Dallas News editorially declared that I was mistaken. I knew at 
the time that I was not mistaken; and a special investigation of 


15 


the question established beyond the shadow of a doubt that the 
Dallas News was mistaken. No man can give us any good 
reason why a negro train porter should receive four times as 
much pay as a farm laborer, and double as much pay as a white 
school teacher. The people of this country will not tolerate such 
an arrangement very long; and railroad managers, as well as 
railroad employees, might just as well make up their minds to 
that effect. 

The worst enemy of organized labor could not desire to see 
it do a more foolish thing than insist that wages which were 
cheerfully advanced to meet an increased cost of living, shall 
stand at their high point though the cost of living has been 
greatly reduced. Such an insistence exhibits a selfish disregard 
of common fairness which must forfeit the sympathy of many 
who have heretofore supported the cause of organized labor; and 
will thoroughly convince the farmers of the country that organ¬ 
ized labor is willing to promote its own interest at their expense. 
I am not counsel for the labor organizations, and they would not 
accej)t my advice if I should tender it; but, despite their preju¬ 
dices against me, I refuse to entertain any prejudice against 
them, and I say to them in the most friendly spirit that they 
must share the fall of prices, just as we shared with them in the 
rise of prices. 

Nor am I counsel for the railroads, and they would no more 
accept my advice than would the unions; but, nevertheless, I 
shall do them the friendly office of telling them that just as cer¬ 
tain as they yield to the demand of their employees for high 
wages, which they can only pay by levying higher charges on the 
public, the good-will with which they have been regarded for sev¬ 
eral years will turn into an ill-will that will express itself, sooner 
or later, in repressive legislation. What else could railroad man¬ 
agers expect, when they know that freight rates are out of all 
proportion to the prices of commodities which the railroads trans¬ 
port? Can the people be asked to pay as much for carrying a 
shipment worth $350.00 as they paid when the same shipment 
was worth $1,000.00? A few simple examples will help us to 
better measure this gross injustice. 

Two years ago a bale of cotton was worth more than $150.00; 
today a bale of cotton is worth less than $50.00; ami the rail¬ 
roads are now charging more to haul a bale of cotton which is 
worth less than $50.00 than they charged to haul a bale of cot¬ 
ton that was worth more than $150.00. Two years ago a bushel 
of wheat was worth $3.25; today a bushel of wheat is worth 
$1.25; and the railroads are now charging more to haul a bushel 


16 


of wheat worth $1.25 than they then charged to haul a bushel of 
wheat worth $3.25. Beef steers which sold for $180.00 two years 
ago are selling for less than $80.00 today; but the railroads are 
now charging more to ship a car-load of steers to Chicago than 
they did then. Hogs are worth less than half as much today as 
they were two years ago; but the railroads now charge the farm¬ 
er more to carry his hogs to market than they did then. This 
must not continue, and it will not continue. 

Railroads managers must have the wisdom and the courage 
to reduce the wages of their employees in order that they may 
reduce their charges against the public. If they would announce 
that decision tomorrow, every man in this country, outside of the 
unions would approve it; and if the unions were to contest it, the 
railroads would have such an advantage over them in public sen¬ 
timent that the result would never be doubtful for a moment. 
Radical union headers might urge resistence; but if the unions 
proceeded to an extremity in resisting a decision so obviously 
just, they would suffer a crushing defeat. 

The railroad managers should know that the people will not 
much longer accept their explanation that they must over-charge 
their patrons, because they must over-pay their employees. Ship¬ 
pers and travellers are willing to pay freights and fares sufficient 
to enable the railroads to pay proper wages to their employees; 
but if the railroads persist in charging freights and fares which 
are out of all reason rather than to reduce the wages of their em¬ 
ployees, the public will hold them—not their employees— 
responsible for the injustice; and the resentment, which is now 
against the employees on account of their refusal to agree to a 
reduction in their wages, will be visited on the railroads them¬ 
selves. That will be natural, and I am not prepared to say that 
it will not be a proper result of this unreasonable situation. 


17 




I Business Furniture 

and 

Office Supplies 


Globe-W ernicke 

Bookcases, Safes, 
Filing Cabinets. 

Lincoln Desks 

For the work of the 
World. 

B. L. Marble 

Office Chairs. 


X 3957 OFFICE OUTFITTERS t 

X 7358 1601 Commerce St. DALLAS X 






TO OUR SUBSCRIBERS 


We take this opportunity to 
correct an impression which 
has hitherto prevailed, that 
The Democratic Review is 
issued on the first day of every 
month. This is a mistake. 
The issue day is the second 
Thursday in every month. 

This month’s issue has been delayed, 
owing to unforseen circumstances. It 
will also be noted that the magazine 
is but twenty pages this month. These 
facts are due to contingencies which 
arose, owing to the strike, ordered by 
the Union, in printing shops. This is¬ 
sue contains in amount exactly the 
same as former issues. The difference 
in size is due to a difference in spac¬ 
ing. We., hope this condition will be 
remedied by the time of the June 
issue. 


i 







^untrr l|ntrl 


An institution catering 
to the public. Known 
as the San Antonio 
home of all Texas. 


PERCY TYRRELL, Manager 





























Assets Over Ten Million Dollars 


Great 

Southern Life Insurance 
Company 

Houston DcJlas 


'‘Texas' Hundred Million Dollar Company" 


Annual Statement 

December 31, 1920 

ADMITTED ASSETS LIABILITIES 


First Mortgage Loans. $5,929,277.39 

Real Estate. 395,426.64 

Policy Loans (within reserve) .. 1,733,607.61 

Liberty Bonds. 887,050.00 

Other Bonds. 270,000.00 

Cash on Deposit. 657,238.49 

All Other Assets. 475,909.49 


Policy Reserves and, all other 

Liabilities. $9,584,510.39 

Surplus to Policyholders includ¬ 
ing Capital Stock, $600,000,- 
00. 763,999.23 


TOTAL.$10,348,509.62 


TOTAL. 


$10,348,509.62 


Insurance in Force - - - $105,573,682.00 


Has Never Issued a Policy with 
Double Indemnity 
Premium Reduction 
Coupons 

Group Insurance 

(No Frills or Trimmings) 


Issues Only 

Plain Simple Contracts 

Full Reserve Values (Cash, Paid-up 

or Extended Insurance.) 

Full Total Disability Benefits 
Monthly Income Payments to Bene¬ 
ficiaries in all Approved Forms. 


We Offer No Inducements to Agents Elxcept Prompt 
Service and Fair Treatment. 

O. S. CARLTON, - - President E. P. GREENWOOD, Vice-President 

HOUSTON DALLAS 


Insurance in Force Over One Hundred Million Dollars 
































A Safe Investment 

When you build Quality should 
have preference over cost, be¬ 
cause the difference for high 
grade lumber is small compared 
with additional service rendered. 

Your local dealer can furnish 
“Kirby” stock of “Kirby quality” 

Ask him for | 

Long and Short Leaf 

Yellow Pine 

Manufactured by 4 

Kirby Lumber Company 


KIRBY-BONNER 

LUMBER COMPANY 

SALES AGENTS = HOUSTON, TEXAS j 


Sheeeog Printing Co., Dallas 


—o 



























XHE 

DEMOCRATIC 

REVIEW 

Owned, Controlled, and Edited By 

JOSEPH W. BAILEY 

VOL. 1 JUNE, 1921 No. 6 


O resist the further encroachment of the Fed¬ 
eral Government on the sovereignty of these 
States, and thus help to perpetuate this 
Republic as our Fathers established it; to 
oppose the further abridgment of individual rights, 
and thus help to preserve for ourselves and our 
posterity the inestimable blessings of civil liberty; 
to support our constitutions, both State and Fede¬ 
ral, in all of their provisions, and thus help to 
limit the power of those who are chosen tQ.,^overn 
us; to contend against the progressive ^atetn^lism 
which is rapidly reducing us to agitate ot^overn- 
mental pupilage, and thus help to l^stg^Hl^at self- 
control without which no people ever be ^Jdp- 
able of self-government; to defend tlWjd^^^^'p 
vate property, and thus help to assure ufose who 
are industrious enough to work, and prudent 
enough to save, that they shall enjoy the fruits of 
their industry and their prudence; to combat 
Socialism in every form, and thus help to maintain 
an orderly government in our country,—are the 
principal purposes which this Magazine is intended 
to serve. 





















CONTENTS 


Suffrage a Question for the States. 
The Tariff. 


Beware, Mr. President. 


Judge Davidson. 


Entered as second class matter, March 10, 1921, at the Post 
Office at Dallas, Texas, under the Act of 
March 3, 1879. 




THE 

DEMOCRATIC 

REVIEW 


Published Mouthly. Dallas, Texas. $1.50 Per Annum. 


We believe that every State should have the right to pre¬ 
scribe the qualifications of its own voters, and we are opposed 
to the pending amendment of the Federal Constitution which 
denies to Texas the right to say who may and who may not 
vote for purely local offices. (Fort Worth Declaration of Prin¬ 
ciples, Paragraph IV). 

SUFFRAGE A QUESTION FOR THE STATES 

That paragraph presents only the question as to what author¬ 
ity shall prescribe the qualifications of a voter, and does not 
touch the question of what those qualifications shall be. The 
first, under our form of government, is a matter of principle; 
and the last, under any form of government, is a matter of 
policy. A State might extend the franchise to women or to 
unnaturalized aliens, or reduce the voting age from twenty-one 
to fifteen, and in doing so it might commit a grave mistake in 
policy; but it would not violate any principle of this government, 
for suffrage, though often spoken of as a right, is merely a 
privilege extended to those who will, it is supposed, exercise it 
for public welfare. Learned statesmen and publicists have ex¬ 
pressed different opinions with respect to the true basis of suf¬ 
frage; but as that is not the subject now before us, I pretermit 
a discussion of it. 

Each State should have the right to prescribe the qualifica¬ 
tions of its own voters, for the obvious reason that the peo¬ 
ple of each State are directly or immediately concerned in that 
question, while the people of other States are concerned directly 
and remotely, if they are concerned at all. Some of the more 
moderate Federalists who call themselves Democrats endeavor 


3 




to justify the Federal control of suffrage by saying that as 
the Senators and Representatives from each State participate in 
making laws which govern the people in all the States, the elec¬ 
tion of Senators and Representatives in each State is a matter of 
vital interest to all of the States. But that argument ignores the 
Federal character of this Republic. The Congressmen elected in 
each State represent the people of the State in which they are 
chosen. They legislate, it is true, upon matters of general in¬ 
terest ; but even in such legislation they speak and vote for their 
particular constituents. 

If Congressmen from Texas represented the people of Mass¬ 
achusetts, then it might be fairly claimed that the people of 
Massachusetts should have a voice in determining who might 
take part in the election of Congressmen from Texas; but as 
long as Congressmen from Texas are chosen to represent the 
people of Texas we should have the exclusive right to deter¬ 
mine who may and who may not vote for our representatives. 
But even if the argument advanced by those Federalists were 
sound, it could not be invoked in defense of the Woman Suf¬ 
frage Amendment to the Federal Constitution; because that 
amendment did not stop with securing to the women in each 
State the right to vote for Representatives and Senators in Con¬ 
gress. It goes much further than that, and it compels every 
State to allow its women to vote for our purely local officers, 
in which other States could not possibly have the slightest in¬ 
terest. 

The people in Maine could not be affected by the election of 
a sheriff in Texas, and should, therefore, have no right to say 
who may or may not vote in such an election. The people of Oregon 
cannot be affected by the election of Judges in this State, and I 
would no more concede their right to prescribe the qualifications 
of those who may elect our Judges than I would concede their 
right to prescribe the qualifications of those who may be elected 
our Judges. Some of the more extreme Federalists attempt to 
justify even that extension of Federal power, by saying that 
citizens of Oregon might find it necesary to sue citizens of 
Texas, and are, therefore, interested in the election of Texas 
Judges. The conclusive answer to that contention is that if a citi¬ 
zen of Oregon has cause of action against a citizen of Texas, 


4 


he can, under the Constitution of the United States, bring his suit 
in the Federal Court, and thus wholly exempt himself from the 
jurisdiction of our State Courts. 

The first seventy-five years after this Republic was organ¬ 
ized we lived under a constitution which left each State to de¬ 
termine for itself who might or who might not vote in its 
elections, and during all that time we suffered no inconvenience, 
friction or injustice. Then came the Fifteenth Amendment, 
which abridged the right of every State to control the qualifi¬ 
cations of its voters, and I need not recall to the intelligent read¬ 
ers of The Democratic Review the federal election-laws and other 
extensions of federal power which have been predicated on that 
amendment. Our experience with the Fifteenth Amendment 
should have deterred us from taking any further step in that 
direction; but we seem to be living in an age which scoffs at 
experience, and refuses to learn anything from the past- Those 
who look behind us for instruction are denounced as ''reaction¬ 
aries,” and only "forward looking men” are permitted to lead 
us now. 

I am not willing to follow a statesman who always looks be¬ 
hind him; but neither am I willing to follow a statesman who 
never looks behind him. The wise man "looks before and after,” 
and the man who does not take counsel of the past can never be 
a safe counselor as to the future- The best way to judge the 
future is by the past; and in order to know what will happen 
to our country under certain conditions we must learn what has 
happened to our country under similar conditions. But disre¬ 
garding the contrast between the first seventy-five years of our 
history, when the States determined, without any limitation on 
their power, who might and who might not vote within them, 
and the next fifty years, when the power of the States in that 
regard was limited by the Fifteenth Amedment, our "progres¬ 
sive” friends heedlessly proceeded to impose a second limitation 
on the power of these States. If we "progress” at this rate 
through the next fifty years, the entire control over suffrage 
will be transferred to the general government, and every election 
will be held under federal regulation. 

If the women could have been enfranchised by a federal 
statute, we might pardon the advocates of it for experimenting 


5 


with such legislation; because if it should prove unsatisfactory 
to the women themselves, or to the country at large, it could be 
repealed by the majority of Congress. But to embody woman 
suffrage in the Constitution of the United States before it had 
been tested sufficiently in any State, and before it had been 
tested at all in many States, was a venture which no wise states¬ 
man could sanction; for no matter how hurtful it may become, it 
will be almost impossible to repeal it. As our Federal Constitu¬ 
tion requires three-fourths of the States voting affirmatively to 
amend it, thirteen States, containing twenty per cent of our 
poulation, con perpetuate woman suffrage, although thirty-five 
States, containing eighty per cent of our population, might ear¬ 
nestly desire to discontinue it. 

To bring this question closer home to us, let us understand 
that if after a fair trial of woman suffrage, an overwhelming 
majority of the women of Texas desire to be relieved of this new 
responsibility, and if all the men in Texas should join them in 
an efiort to secure that relief, the States of Idaho, Nevada, and 
Utah, with a combined population of less than 500,000, could 
out-vote this great State, with 5,000,000 population, on a ques¬ 
tion affecting only its own people. The Texan who consented to 
an arrangement like that must have acted without thinking, or 
he must have no confidence in the capacity of his own people 
to govern themselves. Comparisons are odious, and I make none; 
but I must be permitted to say that if the people of Texas are not 
intelligent enough to prescribe suitable qualifications for their 
own electors, they are not apt to find that other States are intel¬ 
ligent enough to do so for them. 

For more than a century the Democratic party cherished the 
right of each State to prescribe the qualifications of its own 
voters as one of its fundamental principles, and why should it 
not be so cherished still? Has any change in our condition oc¬ 
curred to render that principle inapplicable? A change in our 
condition has occurred, but that change calls more than ever for a 
rigid application of the principle; because the greater our popu¬ 
lation and the more extensive our territory, the more necessary 
it becomes to preserve the exclusive right of each State to deal 
with the local affairs of its own people. If it was wise to apply 
that rule when this Union consisted of only theirteen States, 


6 


with a homogeneous population of less than 4,000,000, it certain¬ 
ly cannot be wise to forsake it now when the Union consists of 
48 States with a mixed population of more than 100,000,000. 
The interests, aptitudes, and habits of our people, widely dis¬ 
persed as they are, must vary greatly, and the same local reg¬ 
ulations cannot, in the nature of things, operate justly on all of 
them. 

Many of the men who helped to submit and to ratify the 
Woman Suffrage Amendment are now crying aloud against the 
encroachment of the Federal Government on the power of these 
States in other respects. We have recently heard much com¬ 
plaint because the Inter-State Commerce Commission asserts 
the right to suspend or nullify a rate fixed by our State Railroad 
Commission on goods transported wholly within our State. The 
Federalists defend the exercise of that power on the ground 
that intra-state rates as fixed by our Railroad Commission may 
interfere with the inter-state rates as fixed by the Inter-State 
Commerce Commission; but no man has yet explained, and no 
man will ever be able to explain, how that could happen. The 
rate fixed by our State Railroad Commission on a shipment from 
Dallas to Abilene must be just and reasonable; the rate fixed 
by the Inter-State Commerce Commission on a shipment from 
New York to Dallas or Abilene must likewise be just and reason¬ 
able; and two rates, both of which are just and reasonable, can 
not interfere with each other. 

But they say, that as the income of a railroad is made up of 
its receipts from both intra-state and inter-state traffic, if the 
intra-state rate is too low, the inter-state rate must be too high. 
That answer seems sufficient until we analyze it, and it then be¬ 
comes transparently insufficient. A State Railroad Commission 
must fix intra-state rates which are just and reasonable; the 
Inter-State Commerce Commission must fix inter-state rates 
which are just and reasonable; and if both the intra-state rates 
and the inter-state rates are just and reasonable, neither can be 
too high because the other is too low. If a State Railroad Com¬ 
mission fixes intra-state rates which are less than just and reas¬ 
onable, the railroads can resort to the courts and have them set 
aside. The appeal, however, should be made to the Courts, and 
not to the Inter-State Commission; for the duty of the Inter- 


7 


state Commerce Commission is wholly with inter-state rates, 
and when they undertake to supervise intra-state rates, they are 
using what, at best, can only be claimed as an incidental power 
to over-ride a power expressly reserved to these states. 

I do not impugn the personal integrity of the Inter-State 
Commerce Commissioners who first promulgated the order su¬ 
perceding an intra-state rate, nor do I doubt the integrity of the 
Supreme Court Judges who sustained the validity of that order; 
but I do not hesitate to say that the order of the Commission 
and the judgment of the Court are the first step in a concerted 
movement to abolish the distinction between intra-state and in¬ 
ter-state commerce. That movement will not confine its efforts 
to the regulation of railroad rates, but it deliberately intends that 
Congress shall regulate all commerce in this country, so far as it 
is regulated by any law. President Roosevelt was the first to 
conceive that idea, or at least he was the first to express it, when 
he declared that our commerce was a unit, and not susceptible of a 
division by State lines. 

Not only do these modem Federalists—some of whom mas¬ 
querade as Democrats and others as Republicans—intend to 
bring all commerce under federal regulation, but they are further 
proposing to treat manufacturing as commerce, and thus bring 
that under federal dominion. A few days ago the House of 
Representatives passed a bill to control the meat-packing in¬ 
dustry, which is not commerce under any -definition heretofore 
proposed or accepted by any court in this country. Packing meat 
is not commerce any more than breeding cattle or hogs is com¬ 
merce ; and if the Federal Government can regulate the slaughter 
of cattle and hogs by a packing house, it can regulate the breeding 
of cattle and hogs by a farmer or ranchman. The packing in¬ 
dustry is manufacture, and the Supreme Court has held repeated¬ 
ly that manufacture is not commerce. But, nothwithstanding these 
decisions, this bill brings the entire packing industry under fed¬ 
eral control as commerce, and specifically provides that certain 
federal regulations shall prevail, “the law of any State or the 
decision or order of any State authority notwithstanding.” Here 
is a naked nullification of S^ate laws, and many men who call 
themselves Democrats voted for that bill, thus evidencing their 
belief that the States in which packing houses were located can 


8 


not be trusted to regulate them, so far as they ought to be reg¬ 
ulated. 

Another long step toward federal control over a matter which 
belongs to the States is proposed in the bills recently introduced, 
both in the House and in the Senate, known as the “Forestry 
Bills.’’ By what stretch of the imagination can it be claimed that 
planting trees in Texas is a question which the Federal Govern¬ 
ment should control? If you tell me the people of other States 
might want the lumber thus produced, I would answer that the 
other States should plant trees for their own people, if any 
government should engage in that business. This bill is again 
vicious in two respects: It puts the government into a business 
which belongs to individuals or corporations; and it puts the 
Federal Government into a business which belongs to the State, 
if it belongs to any government. I understand as well as anybody 
that we will need to re-forest our denuded lands; but certainly 
we do not need lumber any more than we need bread; and if 
we can rely on private enterprise to produce bread for us, we can 
rely on private enterprise to provide lumber for us. The argu¬ 
ment of those men—unconsciously in some cases, but whether 
consciously or unconsciously—is simply this: We need a par¬ 
ticular commodity or service, and the Government should provide 
it for us. That is the essence of Socialism and unless we com¬ 
bat it whenever and wherever it confronts us, we shall not only 
lose sight of all distinctions between the States and the United 
States, but we shall likewise lose sight of all distinctions between 
governmental and individual functions. 

If this Republic is to be saved, we must arrest and reverse 
the tendencies which are gradually, but surely, destroying it; 
and where shall we look for men willing to perform, and capable 
of performing this mighty task. We cannot depend on the men 
who have voted away the police powers of the State to resist 
further aggression upon the remaining powers of the States; for 
no principle can be successfully defended by mon who yielded to 
expediency, and if the sovereignty of these States is to be pre¬ 
served, it must be done by men who will not compromise it. I 
will not trust my interest in this Government to men who invoke 
the doctrine of State Rights against measures which they hap¬ 
pen to oppose, and then tell us that this same doctrine of State 


9 


Rights “was shot to death at Appomatox’' when it stands in the 
way of some measure which they happen to favor. 

I can understand how foolish men or weak men might be¬ 
lieve in the doctrine of State Rights as fully as such men ever 
believe in any principle, and still be willing to waive it in order to 
do something out of which they expected that a good result 
would come; but I cannot understand how any man with sense 
enough to offer himself as a candidate for Congress could fall 
into such an error. Every man with an intellect above the av¬ 
erage knows that it is not possible to benefit our country by vio¬ 
lating the basic principles on which our government was founded. 
We might accomplish some apparent or temporary good in that 
way; but in the end the permanent injury of departing from a 
principle will be much greater than any advantage which could 
be derived from such a departure. If we encourage our public 
men to abandon a sound principle in order to promote a particular 
measure, we will have no right to censure them if they finally 
adopt the theory that our government cannot be conducted on 
fixed principles. Our duty to our country, to our posterity, and 
to ourselves is to vote only for men who believe in our republican 
form of government, and who will vote for no bill or amendment 
calculated to subvert it. 


THE TARIFF 

“The First White House of The Confederacy’' was recently 
re-opened at Montgomery, Alabama, and Senator Harrison, of 
Mississippi, as the orator on that occasion, delivered an ad¬ 
dress in the course of which he said: 

And, Oh! that some of our present-day Democrats, who, 
in their selfish desire to enrich a few at the expense of the 
many, protect one section to the detriment of another, who have 
joined the ranks of those who believe in a protective tariff, 
would read and memorize that part of the Confederate con¬ 
stitution that condemned in the strongest possible language 
a protective tariff and unanimously laid down the rule that the 
passage of such law was forever prohibited by the Confederate 
congress. 

If I did not know Senator Harrison’s record on the tariff 
question I would think that he intended, in the passage which I 


10 



have just quoted from his speech, to criticise those democrats 
who vote to place all raw materials and all farm products on the 
free list while leaving manufactured goods on the dutiable list; 
for, obviously, such a law benefits a few who manufacture at the 
expense of the many who produce raw materials and farm pro¬ 
ducts. But knowing as I do, that Senator Harrison was an ar¬ 
dent supporter of the Tariff Bill enacted under the Adminis¬ 
tration of President Wilson, I know that his criticism was di¬ 
rected against those Democrats who voted in the last Congress, 
as well as in the present Congress, for an emergency Tariff Bill 
imposing a duty on certain raw materials and farm products. 

Does it “enrich the few at the expense of the many'' to levy 
a duty on raw materials and farm products? Senator Harrison 
and his schoool of politicians contend that it does; but I can 
demonstrate that it does not. To make this matter plain, let us 
deal in particulars rather than in generalities, and select some 
commodity to test the argument. What one commodity shall 
we select ? As wool is always included in every free list proposed 
by those who advocate the doctrine of free raw material, they 
certainly cannot object if we use wool as our test- We must be¬ 
gin by recognizing that a duty on wool enhances its price, which 
means, of course, that a duty on wool increases the price which 
its producers receive for it when they sell it, and likewise in¬ 
creases the price which its consumers must pay for it when they 
buy it. 

The question, therefore, of whether a duty on wool “enriches 
the few at the expense of the many" is a very simple one, and 
the answer to it depends on the number of those who consume 
it. If those who produce wool were few, and those who consume 
wool were many. Senator Harrison would be right in thinking that 
a duty on wool tends to “enrich the few at the expense of the 
many," but as the farmers and ranchmen who produce wool in 
this country number of 2.000,000, while the manufacturers who 
consume it number less that 2,000 a duty on wool can not pos¬ 
sibly “enrich the few at the expense of the many." 

Senator Harrison thinks that everybody who wears wool¬ 
en clothes is a consumer of wool; but that is not the truth—either 
literal or economic. The people who manufacture wool into 
cloth are the actual consumers of woolen cloth. If Senator Har- 


11 


rison had said that a duty on woolen goods enriches the few at 
the expense of the many, he would have spoken the truth; but 
when he asserts that a duty on wool enriches the few at the ex¬ 
pense of the many, he speaks exactly opposite of the truth, and 
nobody understands that better than the woolen manufacturers 
of this country. Every time it is proposed to reduce the duty on 
woolen goods the manufacturers endeavor to compensate 
themselves for the reduction in the selling price of their pro¬ 
ducts by demanding free wool, so as to reduce their manufactur¬ 
ing cost, and thus leave their profits undiminished. 

The manufacturer can be protected in two ways. One way is 
to lev>^ a duty on his finished product, thus increasing the price 
at which he can sell it; and the other way is to place his raw 
material on the free list, thus reducing the cost at which he can 
produce his goods. In his famous report on manufactures, Alex¬ 
ander Hamilton specified both the imposition of duties on the 
finished product, and the importation of raw materials free of 
duty, as means by which manufacturing might be encouraged. 
By levying a duty on the finished product we protect the manu¬ 
facturer at the selling end of the transaction; by permitting the 
manufacturer to import his raw material free of duty, we protect 
him at the producing end of the transaction; and a profit is as¬ 
sured to the manufacturer in one case as well as in the other. 

Let us pursue this inquiry a little further; because the 
further we inquire into this question, the more apparent it will 
become that the Senator from Mississippi was talking arrant 
nonsense- The Tariff Bill passed under the Wilson Administra¬ 
tion placed wool on the free list and in doing so it saved the 
woolen manufacturers of this country, who number less than 
2,000, a vast sum of money, which was taken in part from the 
Government, and in greater part from the wool-producers of our 
country. I have not examined the statistics of wool importa¬ 
tion for several years, but I distinctly recall that in one year the 
Government collected more than $21,000,000 in duties on wool, 
and only two-fifths of the total consumption was imported, leav¬ 
ing three-fifths to be supplied by our domestic producers. If, 
then, a duty on wool increases its price to the extent of the duty, 
free wool would have saved to our woolen goods manufacturers, 
in that single year, the stupendous sum of $54,000,000. 


12 


To verify the foregoing statement is a simple matter of cal¬ 
culation. First, they would have saved the $21,000,000 which 
they paid to the Government as duties on the wool which they 
imported; and, second, they would have saved $33,000,000 on 
their purchases of domestic wool, for if the duty on two-fifths 
was $21,000,000, then the increased price in consequence of the 
tariff duty on the other three-fifths was $33,000,000, or a total 
of $54,000,000, and that $54,000,000 would have provided a return 
of moi"e than nine per cent on every dollar invested in the woolen 
man^ifacturing business of this country. With this undisputed 
and indisputable fact before him, how can a Senator in Congress 
assert that the man who votes for a duty on wool is actuated by 
a “selfish desire to enrich the few at the expense of the many V* 
Indeed, how can any Senator escape the conclusion that the man 
who votes for free wool is really the man who is voting to “en¬ 
rich the few at the expense of the many V 

Neither Senator Horrison nor any other living man can jus¬ 
tify free wool and taxed woolen clothes; but by following his 
logic against “enriching the few at the expense of the many,” I 
could easily justify taxed wool and free woolen clothes. The con¬ 
sumers of wool number less than 2,000, while the consumers of 
woolen cloth number more than 100,000,000; and yet Senator 
Harrison and all of those who entertain the same tariff view 
as he does, seem to think that it is entirely proper to tax the 
clothes which one hundred million men, women, and children 
must buy in order to be decent and comfortable, but that it is a 
dishonest protection to levy a tariff on the wool which 2,000 
manufacturers buy for the sake of the profit which they can 
make out of it by manufacturing it into woolen cloth. 

Why should the 2,000 opulent manufacturers of woolen goods 
be permitted to import their wool without paying any duty on 
it, while if the toiling millions import woolen clothes, they are 
compelled to pay an average duty of more than 45 per cent 
on them? What is the difference in the nature of wool and 
woolen clothes which justifies this difference in the taxation of 
them? Let me state it a little more concretely. If a manufac¬ 
turer ships a cargo of woolen goods to any part of the world and 
exchanges them for wool, he can bring that wool back into this 
country without paying a penny duty on it; but if one thou- 


13 


sand wool growers should jointly ship a cargo of wool to any 
part of the world and exchange it for woolen clothes, they would 
be compelled to pay a duty of 45 per cent before they could bring 
their woolen clothes into this country for t|heir town family 
use. Who can justify that? 

A genuine Democrat would not vote for a tax on wool for the 
purpose of compelling the manufacturers to pay the producer 
more for the wool which they buy any more than he would vote 
for a duty on woolen clothes for the purpose of compelling the 
American people to pay more for the clothes which they must 
buy. A real Democrat would vote for no duty except for the 
purpose of raising revenue to support the Government, he would 
resolutely insist that every manufacturer shall be compelled to 
pay his part as long as the American people are compelled to 
pay their part. I would rejoice if the expenses of this Govern¬ 
ment could be reduced to a point where we could take the tax 
off of both raw wool and woolen clothes ; but I will never agree 
to take the tax off of the wool which our manufacturers buy so 
long as a duty is left on the woolen clothes which our manufac¬ 
turers sell. 

Senator Harrison should read the celebrated report of Robert 
J. Walker before he makes another reference to the tariff ques¬ 
tion. That report expresses the true creed of the Democratic 
party, and it should be of particular interest to Senator Harrison, 
as its author was once a Senator in Congress from the State of 
Mississippi, and, without disparaging the other great men who 
have represented that State, I can say that, with the single 
exception of Mr. Davis, it was never represented in the Senate 
by an abler man than Mr. Walker. That report specifically as¬ 
sailed the Whig Tariff Act of 1842 because it levied a higher duty 
on the manufacturer's finished product than it did on the raw 
material out of which it was made. No such discrimination ap¬ 
peared in the Democratic Tariff Act of 1846, which was based on 
the Walker report, and which has always been regarded, until 
recently, as a model for democratic tariff legislation. 

The Tariff is again an important issue in our politics, and we 
must deal with it in a spirit of absolute candor. Politicians may 
be anxious to shuffle, but the people will not permit it. The Re¬ 
publican party will, of course, declare for a protective tariff, 


14 


which will profess to extend its protection equally to all sections, 
classes and industries. The rank and file of the Republican party 
believe that a republican tariff law makes no discrimination as 
between the producers of this country; but republican leaders 
know better; they know that under the disguise of compensatory 
duties the manufacturers enjoy a very much higher protection 
than any other class of our people. I am not, however, so much 
concerned about the subterfuges of the Republican party as I am 
about the attitude of the Democratic party. If the disciples of 
President Wilson are able to commit us to a tariff policy which 
taxes manufactured goods and places on the free list all farm 
products and raw materials, the Democratic party will be des¬ 
troyed; for this country will not tolerate an injustice which is 
so palpable and so gross. 


BEWARE, MR. PRESIDENT 

More than three million Democrats voted the Republican 
Presidential ticket at the last election. Many of those men 
could never be Republicans; and they voted as they did in pro¬ 
test against the betrayal of the Democratic party. They made 
no attempt to conceal their attitude, and they will never regret 
having refused to vote for Mr. Cox, even if they should come 
to regret having voted for Mr. Harding. It is possible that the 
Republican candidate would have been elected without those 
Democratic votes; but that is not certain by any means, and they 
had a right to expect that the President would keep at their face 
value the pledges made by him and his party. In this they are 
to be disappointed. None of those pledges will be kept at their 
face value and some of them will not be kept at all. 

The pledge to restore a constitutional government in this 
country is already in the congressional waste-basket; for the 
House and the Senate have passed bills which violate the Con¬ 
stitution of the United States just as plainly as the Child Labor 
Bill, or the Oleomargarine Bill, and many others of the same 
kind. Those bills were framed with the deliberate purpose of 
preventing the courts from passing judgment on them accord¬ 
ing to their real purpose, and thus cheat the Constitution. We 


15 



have, however, become so accustomed to such legislation that the 
country at large will not stop to quarrel about it, though the 
Democrats who voted for Mr. Harding will be sorely disap¬ 
pointed by it. 

The pledge of governmental economy has been forgotten, and 
no pretense of a desire to redeem it is now made. Indeed, it 
seems practically certain that the appropriations for the next 
fiscal year will exceed those for the last fiscal year, and the 
hope of a reduction in our taxes has disappeared from the pre¬ 
dictions of the Republican leaders. This, again, will disappoint 
President Harding's democratic supporters, as it will many Re¬ 
publicans; but the waste of public money has so long been the 
order of the day that no revolt on that account is probable. The 
politicians will continue to talk economy and practice extra¬ 
vagance until some fine day the American people will make 
short shift of such; but that day is not here, and probably not 
near us at this time. 

Mr. Harding's Administration, however, is facing a grave dan¬ 
ger in the business condition of the country, and unless he does 
something, without delay, to improve that condition, he will suf¬ 
fer in his popularity to such an extent that his party may lose the 
next congressional elections. Republicans have taught the peo¬ 
ple of this country to believe that our business prosperity is large¬ 
ly influenced by the political character of our Federal Admin¬ 
istration, and they need not be surprised if their teaching now 
comes back to plague them. I know, of course, that the pros¬ 
perity of this country depends upon the industry and frugality 
of the people, combined with seasons which bring us abundant 
crops, very much more than it does upon any political party; but I 
also know that the party now in power can greatly relieve the 
distress of the situation. 

If the Federal Reserve Board would take its hands off of the 
banks of this country and allow them to accommodate their cus¬ 
tomers who are entitled to accommodations, the financial pres¬ 
sure would be measurably relieved, the business would revive, 
not fully, but to a reasonable degree. If, however, the Federal 
Reserve Board persists in the course which it has pursued for 
months, the situation will grow worse—because any bad sit¬ 
uation always grows worse the longer it continues—and we may 


16 


soon find our country involved in the most appalling financial 
disaster. It cannot be otherwise; for if men can not obtain loans, 
then they cannot make purchases or pay their debts, unless 
they sell their property; and it is almost impossible to sell prop¬ 
erty when the money market is such that nobody can borrow 
the money with which to buy it. 

If men who have property can neither sell it nor borrow 
money on it, a business stagnation is inevitable; and that spells 
bankruptcy to thousands of enterprising men. Many would be 
bankrupt now except for the very sensible indulgence of our lo¬ 
cal banks. They have not pressed their debtors, and they will not 
do so unless a withdrawal of their deposits compels them to make 
collections; and if that should happen we will find ourselves in 
the midst of a disastrous panic. The local (banks lare; sin¬ 
cerely anxious to help; but they can do very little unless the 
Regional banks will re-discount their paper, and the Regional 
banks can do very little unless the Federal Reserve Board will 
relax their restrictions for enough to ease the money market, and 
rescue the country from an impending calamity. 

Under the wisest management, this year could not have been 
other than a hard one; because debts had been contracted in the 
production or in the purchase of high priced commodities, and the 
sharp fall in prices entailed losses which could not be liquidated in 
a single year. The cotton crop illustrates that condition as it 
applies to the South. Our last crop was made on a cost basis of 
not less than twenty-five cents per pound, with the expectation 
of a selling price of not less than thirty, or even thirty-five cents 
a pound. Expenses were incurred accordingly; but when the 
crop was ready for the market the price had fallen to fifteen 
cents, and before the entire crop was sold the price had fallen to 
ten cents, per pound. The result, of course, was that the cotton 
growers of the South were unable to pay the debts which they 
had contracted in producing last year's crop, and were compelled 
to carry over a part of them. 

Like honest men, these southern farmers are striving to pay 
their debts, and in order to do so they are spending less this 
year than they have spent in any year for more than a decade. 
That is, of course, entirely to their credit; but, at the same time, 
it has necessarily curtailed the business of our merchants. Our 


17 


farmers have economized so rigidly that few of our merchants 
expect to make any profits during this year, and they will be 
entirely satisfied if they are able to meet the expenses of this 
year’s business out of this year’s sales, and collect what they 
carried over from last year. 

The condition in the South, as I have above described it, is 
duplicated in every other section; because the products of each 
particular section have fallen in price—many of them not quite 
so much as cotton, but all of them to an extent sufficient to pro¬ 
produce a serious financial predicament. The farmers of this coun¬ 
try constitute almost one-half of our consumers, and when they 
reduce their purchases to the lowest possible point, the effect 
of it must be felt in every factory and storehouse. Even if we 
should agree that this curtailed purchasing power of the farmer 
is unavoidable, we must not be asked to agree that it should be 
aggravated by the unnecessary denial of accommodations at the 
banks; and there lies the danger to this republican Adminis¬ 
tration. 


JUDGE DAVIDSON 

The brief address which, at the request of the family. Chief 
Justice Phillips delivered at the grave of the late Judge Davidson 
is so excellent in thought and diction that it should be read by 
every Texan who loves his State, and knows the manner of men 
who have made it great. Chief Justice Phillips spoke as follows: 

We are about to lay away, to sleep in the bosom of the 
all-encompassing earth, the mortal part of one of the most il¬ 
lustrious figures in all the life of the State. But that is only 
in a measure the meaning of this sorrowful and solemn scene. 

Its other, and I will say, its large meaning is that we are about 
to take our leave of one of the noblest, kindliest men of this 
time, or of any time. 

It is hard for you, it is hard for me, to say farewell to him. 

Only yesterday, it seems, he walked among us, the great 
Judge, the faithful and spotless citizen, with all the splendid, 
inspiring presence of his erect and sturdy form, his frank and 
fearless eye, and his unbowed silvered crest; and now, he lies 
here before us, lifeless and still, amid the sad and quiet pagean¬ 
try of death. 

I am here to speak of him as I am told he wished that 
I should; and in only the simplest way, and because I know if 


18 



there had been a different ordering of Providence he would 
have performed similar office for me, though it is difficult 
for anyone who held him in the affection I did, and as you did, 
to speak at all. 

Panegyric Baffled. 

In the hush and awe of this last hour, there need be no 
eulogy of him other than lies in the simplicity and purity of 
our love for him. One of the wonderful things about men like 
him is that they baffle all panegyric. Their lives, alone, speak 
unfailingly of them and for them. Only poorly and faintly 
may the words of common speech express them or describe them. 

There lies prostrate here not only the eminent jurist and 
the upright man. In the death of Judge Davidson there has in 
a certain measure fallen one of the institutions of Texas. He 
had truly become and was one of the pillars of the State repre¬ 
senting and emblemizing that indefinable force and element 
which the career and service of a great man gives to the life of a 
commonwealth—expressing its character and vital part, reveal¬ 
ing and speaking its mighty spirit, looked to and loved by the 
people as fundamentally a security and a dependence, and sym¬ 
bolizing certain features of the very State itself. 

Embodied Texas Spirit 

Austin, Houston, Rusk, Hemphill, Roberts, Hurt, Slayton, 
Gaines and Brown, and the men of their private and public 
service, were not only distinguished lives in the history of Texas. 
Because they bespoke certain things in the State they became 
and were a part of the State. I love to think they are still 
a part of it. The spirit of Texas shone through them and diffus¬ 
ed itself for the good of the people and for the preservation to 
them of certain things, certain ideas and principles, associated 
with the very power of the State. Judge Davidson was of their 
company and because he was, there had come to be embodied 
in his character and in his life, with a kind of permanence, a 
certain elemental part of the commonwealth. 

The source of that achievement—I will not say the secret of it, 
was simply the rugged honesty, the rugged power, the intrepid, 
unfaltering courage of the man. He never altered his honest 
thought. He never shamed his matured conviction. He demand¬ 
ed of himself only that he be “shielded and helmeted and wea- 
poned with the truth.” Thus armed, he wore, always, his in- 
aependence like a “fluttering plume.” 

A great character, like the oak thrives only in the open air 
of freedom. It spreads its roots deep and wide, and grows and 
towers in stately strength, only while the free winds play among 
its branches and the unhindered sunshine settles upon its head. 
And the oak let us always remember, is an oak simply because 
it was the seed of an oak that was planted. It is the wise or¬ 
dering of God that character and character alone, shall be the 
seed and root of all true greatness and all true achievement. 

Service to State Long 

For thirty years—nearly a third of a century—he stood 
clear, and just in his office, passing on the lives and liberties 


19 


of his fellowmen. In him and through him breathed and lived 
the spirit of the race of* great judges. There, he emblemized 
the majesty of the law, its power, its strength, its dignity and 
not alone that, but its justice and the unbending integrity of 
its written word, the unbending integrity of a legal trial. To 
him “no one was so high as to be beyond the power of the law; 
none so low as to be beneath its care.” If he had any failings 
there, we may say it proudly of him and before all the world, 
that they all leaned to virtue’s, to mercy’s side. 

There is a fine saying somewhere which he exemplified and 
lived up to as perfectly as any man I have ever known—that 
the character of a wise man consists of just three things; 
To do himself what he tells others to do; to act on no occasion 
contrary to justice; and to bear gently with the weaknesses of 
those around him. , 

Boyhood Knew Sacrifice 

He loved the State with the patriot’s unselfish, disin¬ 
terested devotion. He loved her proud traditions, her inspiring 
legends. He was bom the year she became a State, and his 
life thereafter spanned every year of her life. There lived in 
him the stalwartness and robustness of the brave and hardy 
who rescued her from Mexican tyranny and set her upon her 
proud career—the men who tragically died at the Alamo and 
Goliad, and gloriously won the victory at San Jacinto—those 
heroic men of Plutarch “with empire in their brain.” His boy¬ 
hood knew something of their sacrifice and endurance, the 
hard condition of the pioneer home, the grim contest with the 
wilderness, the dangers and perils of life on the frontiers of 
civilization. Possibly the proudest memory of his life was his 
heroic pioneer father, the devout man of God, to have kept whose 
faith he counted the best thing of his manhood. 

Loving the State, he loved her rights and valued her sov¬ 
ereignty. Hence, he was naturally a Confederate soldier. It 
was the distinction of his youth to have stood beneath the saint¬ 
ed flag of the Starry Cross, and to have followed its streaming 
folds upon the fiery edge of battle—to have been one of “that 
long, thin gray line” that blithely charged into the jaws of death 
by the gleam of the sword of Robert E. Lee—that race of men 
who gave to these Southern States for all time, if we their 
children will but love it, a fadeless, imperishable glory. 

Family Was Chief Concern 

He had, please God, the traditional Southern conception 
of the family tie and relation, of the roof-tree, the home—the 
virtuous and the only sure and dependable basis of society. In 
the tender husband, the loving father, his superiority was best 
manifested and expressed. With all the pressing interests of 
his busy, tireless life, his family was always his paramount con¬ 
cern. Before that sacred alter, for fifty years he paid the devout 
homage of his chivalric heart; and there, in turn, he was rarely 
blessed with the love and devotion of a noble wife and splendid 
children. 


20 


He knew God and was known of God, for above all things 
he was a Godly man. He had found him as the prophet Elijah 
found him, not in the earthquake, or the fire, or in the mighty 
wind, but in the still, small voice that speaks to the reason and 
conscience, and that lifts men up and not alone to God's thought, 
but to Godly action. His faith was not the faith of creeds and 
doctrines. It was the faith, I have many times thought, of the 
Galilean fisherman, a faith that might have been inspired by 
the presence of the Savior, faith in his mercy and goodness, the 
faith against which Ephesus, Corinth, Alexandria, Athens, 
Rome and all the pagan world could not prevail, and before 
which the kingdoms and empires of the earth must humbly 
bow. 

Was Poor Man's Friend 

He was the poor man's friend, the humble man's associate, 
and the little children loved him. He wronged no man. He cov¬ 
eted no man’s riches. He envied no man’s success. He walked 
through all his years, without guile, the broad and open high¬ 
way of a noble and generous and useful life, and the world is 
richer and happier and better for his having lived in it. 

We may reverently and devoutly thank God for such a man. 

One life like his was worth more than all the speculations 
of the philosophers over the mysteries of life and death, more 
than all the learned dogmas and mysticism of scientific treaties. 
It is an interpretation for all of us of the uses of life, and a 
revelation of the triumph of a clean and noble spirit over the 
common doom of death. 

One of the greatest facts of the Bible is that the first death 
was of a righteous man—not Adam the sinful man, nor of Cain, 
with human blood upon his hands, but of Abel, the innocent 
and the righteous. 

Death can have no terrors for the righteous. It had none for 
Judge Davidson. When the breath of the eternal morning 
touched his brow and for him the final summons came, he went 
to his maker tranquil and unafraid, to stand before him face 
to face with the same brave, calm consciousness with which he 
faced and performed here his every duty. In that region of the 
blessed, with his sainted father and mother, and welcomed by 
those rare spirits who were his companions on earth, we know 
that his noble soul has reached its home and is at peace. 


21 


I Business Furniture 

❖ 

and 

Office Supplies 


Globe-Wernicke 

Bookcases, Safes, 
Filing Cabinets. 

^ Lincoln Desks 

For the work of the 
World. 

B. L. Marble 

Office Chairs. 


3i>9psop-'‘W^iten>a9Cbi 

X 3957 OFFICE OUTFITTERS 
X 7358 1601 Commerco St. DALLAS 


The circulation of this maga¬ 
zine must be brought to a point 
where the good that may be 
done wiD be commensurate 
with the work that is being 
done. This is being accomp¬ 
lished, with the aid of our 
friends, and we wish to take 
this means of thanking them 
for their assistance. However, 
we hope that this good work 
can be continued and a much 
larger circulation attained. All 
subscriptions should be sent to 
the address given below, and 
will receive prompt attention 
at our hands. 

The Democratic Review 

808 Great Southern Life Bldg. 

Dailas, Texas 







An institution catering 
to the public. Known 
as the San Antonio 
home of ail Texas. 




PERCY TYRRELL. Manager 


*1* *1* *1* *t' *5' *1* 



























Assets Over Ten Million Dollars 


Great 

Southern Life Insurance 
Company 

Houston Dallas 

“Texas’ Hundred Million Dollar Company” 


Annual Statement 

December 31, 1920 

ADMITTED ASSETS LIABILITIES 


Policy Reserves and. all other 

Liabilities. $9,584,510.39 


First Mortgage Loans. $5,929,277.39 

Real Estate. 395,426.64 

Policy Loans (within reserve).... 1,733,607.61 

Liberty Bonds. 887,050.00 

Other Bonds. 270,000.00 

Cash on Deposit. 657,238.49 

All Other Assets. 475,909.49 


Surplus to Policyholders includ¬ 
ing Capital Stock, $600,000,- 
00. 763,999.23 


TOTAL.$10,348,509.62 TOTAL.$10,348,509.62 


Insurance in Force - - - $105,573,682.00 


Has Never Issued a Policy with 
Double Indemnity 
Premium Reduction 
Coupons 

Group Insurance 

(No Frills or Trimmings) 


Issues Only 

Plain Simple Contracts 

Full Reserve Values (Cash, Paid-up 

or Extended Insurance.) 

Full Total Disability Benefits 
Monthly Income Payments to Bene¬ 
ficiaries in all Approved Forms. 


We Offer No Inducements to Agents Except Prompt 
Service and Fair Treatment. 

O. S. CARLTON, - - President E. P. GREENWOOD, Vice-President 

HOUSTON DALLAS 


Insurance in Force Over One Hundred Milion Dollars 































A Safe Investment 

When you build Quality should 
have preference over cost, be¬ 
cause the difference for high 
grade lumber is small compared 
with additional service rendered. 

Your local dealer can furnish 
“Kirby” stock of “Kirby quality” 
Ask him for 

Long and Short Leaf 

Yellow Pine 

Manufactured by 

Kirby Lumber Company 


KIRBY-BONNER 

LUMBER COMPANY 

SALES AGENTS s HOUSTON, TEXAS 


Sheegog Printing Co., Dallas 





















THE 

DEMOCRATIC 

REVIEW 


Owned, Controlled, and Edited By 

JOSEPH W. BAILEY 


VOL. 1 


JULY, 1921 


No. 7 



O resist the further encroachment of the FecJ^j 
eral Government on the sovereignty of these^^^ v 
States, and thus help to perpetuate this \ 
Republic as our Fathers established it; to 
oppose the further abridgment of individual rights, 
and thus help to preserve for ourselves and our 
posterity the inestimable blessings of civil liberty; 
to support our constitutions, both State and Fed¬ 
eral, in all of their provisions, and thus help to 
limit the power of those who are chosen to govern 
us; to contend against the progressive paternalism 
which is rapidly reducing us to a state of govern¬ 
mental pupilage, and thus help to restore that self- 
control without which no people can ever be cap¬ 
able of self-government; to defend the right of pri¬ 
vate property, and thus help to assure those who 
are industrious enough to work, and prudent 
enough to save, that they shall enjoy the fruits of 
their industry and their prudence; to combat 
Socialism in every form, and thus help to maintain 
an orderly government in our country,—are the 
principal purposes which this Magazine is intended 
to serve. 
















CONTENTS 


Individual Liberty. 

A Criticism Answered. 


Oil Politics in Texas. 
A Speech. 


Entered as second class matter, March 10, 1921, at the Post 
Office at Dallas, Texas, under the Act of 
March 3, 1879. 




THE 

DEMOCRATIC 

REVIEW 


Published Moathly. Dallas, Texas. $1.50 Per Annum. 


INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 

We denounce the growing tendency to regulate everything 
by law, and we demand that every American citizen shall be left 
as free to do for himself, and with his own, as is consistent with 
the peace and good order of society. (Paragraph 6 of the Fort 
Worth Declaration of Principles). 

I have recently read a letter written by a prominent clergy¬ 
man of this State in which he severely criticised the above para¬ 
graph and declared that ‘‘the Fort Worth Mass Meeting was very 
solicitous about the rights of the individual, but seemed to feel 
no interest whatever in the rights of society.” The sufficient 
answer to that criticism is that in drafting this particular para¬ 
graph the Fort Worth Mass Meeting had in mind the rights of 
society as well as the rights of the individual, and safeguarded 
the one as completely as it did the other. The proposition there 
laid down is that “every citizen shall be left as free to do for 
himself and with his own as is consistent with the peace and good 
order of society;” and the corollary from that proposition plainly 
is that no citizen has a right to do for himself or with his own 
anything which is inconsistent with the peace and good order of 
society. 

Without thinking over the matter, some excellent men may 
wonder why the Fort Worth Mass Meeting asserted the rights 
of the individual as its proposition, and left the rights of society 
to a corollary; but those who think over it will perceive that our 
condition rendered that form of expression a proper one. If the 
present tendency had been to unduly diminish the rights of so¬ 
ciety by unduly enlarging the rights of the individual, we would 


3 




have made the rights of society our proposition, leaving the rights 
of the individual to the corollary. But believing, as it did, that 
the rights of society are already secure and that the rights of 
the individual are in the most serious jeopardy, the Fort Worth 
Mass Meeting could not have distinctly presented the issue which 
it sought to have decided by the people of Texas by stating it in 
any other form. This is the simple explanation, and it will sat¬ 
isfy every reasonable mind. 

That it is the right of every American citizen to do for him¬ 
self and with his own whatever he pleases so long as he does not 
disturb the peace and good order of society was once accepted 
as a governmental maxim in this country, and no man, whether 
Federalist, Democrat, Whig, or Republican, disputed the sound¬ 
ness of it. Even now, if stated in the abstract, it would be dis¬ 
puted by extreme paternalists; but while professing to believe 
in it as a theory, a very large majority of our law-makers have 
utterly abandoned it in practice, and are rapidly bringing us to 
a time when no American citizen will be permitted to do anythng 
for himself or with his own except according to the direction of 
some statute. With the will of the Government thus substituted 
for the will of the citizen in his personal affairs, the inevitable 
result must be to destroy that spirit of self-reliance which our 
people must have or they can not perpetuate our free institu¬ 
tions. 

In order that we may judge wisely on a question of this kind, 
we must recur to first principles and understand that a free gov¬ 
ernment is established for the purpose of protecting—not for the 
purpose of destroying—the natural rights of men. It is neces¬ 
sary, of course, under any form of government, that men shall 
surrender some of their natural rights in order to insure the pro¬ 
tection of those which they retain; but it is not necessary, under 
our form of government, for any man to surrender any natural 
right which he can exercise without disturbing the peace and good 
order of society. That is the supreme test; for no man who 
loves liberty can desire to abridge it further than that, and every 
man who believes in an orderly government is willing to have 
his liberty abridged to that extent. That is our creed; or, at 
least, it was our creed until within the last few years, and it must 


4 


again become our creed, if the Democratic party is to fulfill the 
great mission to which its immortal founders dedicated it. 

Some superficial thinkers reject our theory that a free gov¬ 
ernment is established for the purpose of protecting the rights 
of all who are subject to its jurisdiction, and maintain that the 
true purpose of every government is to prevent men from doing 
wrong; but manifestly they confuse the means with the end. To 
protect the rights of one man the law must forbid the invasion 
of his rights by other men; but forbidding the wrong is merely 
a method of protecting the right. This distinction is mportant, 
and should never be ignored. The personal conduct of men should 
be regulated only so far as it may affect the rights of other 
men; and no act can properly be forbidden unless it transgresses 
a right. The rights of society can be fully protected under a 
strict adherence to this rule, and we can not depart from it with¬ 
out subverting this Republic. 

A wrongful act which injures only the wrong-doer is not 
properly within the control of any government, except such as 
may constitute itself a guardian for its people. A free govern¬ 
ment has no right to say that John Doe shall not tear down his 
own house; but a free government has a right to say, and it is 
in duty bound to say, that John Doe shall not tear down the house 
of Richard Roe. Indeed, a free government has the right to 
say, and should say, that John Doe shall not tear down his own 
house, if there is a mortgage or other lien upon it; because a 
mortgagee or a lien-holder has a right to subject that house to 
the payment of his debt. The illustration can be carried further. 
John Doe may have a right to tear down his own house, and still 
have no right to burn up that same house, if it is so situated that 
the fire would endanger the house of another man. A man has a 
right to be foolish, provided others are not made to suffer through 
his folly. 

If we would keep clearly before our minds the great purpose 
for which our government was established, we would be more 
resolute in confining it to the exercise of its proper powers, and 
more certain to resist the improper extension of its powers; but 
the average citizen in this day does not seriously concern himself 
about such matters. The people of this Republic feel so secure 
in their liberty that they have ceased to fear the loss of it, and 


5 


impairments of it which would have once aroused this country like 
an alarm at night now pass without even a protest. In this state 
of mind, lies our gravest danger, unless all the lessons of history 
are at fault. Ours is not the world’s first free government. 
Other people have, for a time, been as free as we were in the 
beginning, but gradually their liberty was undermined precisely 
as our liberty is being undermined today; and we are indifferent, 
just as they were, to the warnings of the watchmen on our towers. 

In every age and in every land governments have constantly 
endeavored to increase their power over the people, and one of 
the curious facts of history is that this effort has been most suc¬ 
cessful in free countries. While the subjects of Kings, Emperors, 
and Czars have struggled to emancipate themselves from the ab¬ 
solute domination of their masters, the people of free states have 
often acquiesced in the extension of governmental power over 
them, with the most melancholy results. It was their knowledge 
of this historical fact which moved our patriotic forefathers to 
admonish us, in season and out of season, that **a country which 
is governed least is governed best.” Profoundly impressed with 
the truth of that admonition, our statesmen in the early days of 
this Republic repeated it on every suitable occasion; but this 
generation heeds it not. We continue to enact new laws, while 
neglecting to enforce the old ones. 

Not only have our people relaxed their vigilance against the 
abridgment of their liberty; but their conception of liberty has 
undergone a most disquieting change. In that other time, when 
a patriot rejoiced in the thought that ours is a free country, he 
had in mind the right of every man to regulate his own life and 
conduct in his own way, so far as he did not trespass on the right 
of other men to do the same; but in this day when men boast that 
ours is a free country, they have in mind its power to determine 
all questions for itself, without the aid or the consent of other 
countries. Our fathers cherished, even more than they did their 
lives, the right of our country to govern its own people without 
interference or suggestion from foreign nations; but they called 
that, “independence,” and the right of every man to pursue his 
own happiness in his own way they called, “liberty.” 

Independence belongs to a country; liberty belongs to the in¬ 
dividual ; they are not always inseparable; and either may exist 


6 


without the other. A country may be independent, and yet its 
people may not be free; or a country may not be independent, 
and yet its people may be free. Russia was an independent coun¬ 
try when the Czar was on his throne, and it is still an independ¬ 
ent country amidst the misfortunes and the distractions of a 
Soviet Government; but its people have not been free under 
either. Canada is not an independent country; but its people 
are free, and are subject to less restriction than we are vexed 
with in this time. Many other examples, in ancient as well as 
in modem times, could be cited; but it would be a waste of time 
to do so, because every intelligent man will recognize the differ¬ 
ence between liberty and independence when it is called to his 
attention. ^ 

If I were called upon to explain this remarkable change in 
the thought and speech of our people, in this State, at least, 
I would be compelled to ascribe it in large part to the intro¬ 
duction of the prohibition question into our politics. The re¬ 
sponsibility for that mistake does not lie wholly with either 
side, although I think it may be fairly said that it does lie en¬ 
tirely with the politicians of both sides. In the northern and 
central parts of the State, where the prohibitionists were in a 
pronounced majority, ambitious prohibitionists sought to create 
a prejudice against anti-prohibitionists as a means of enhancing 
their own chance of election to office; and in the southern part 
of the State, where the anti-prohibitionists were in a pro¬ 
nounced majority, ambitious anti-prohibitionists sought to 
create a prejudice against prohibitionists in order to enhance 
their own chance of election to office. The question having been 
made a political one in that way, the arguments on each side 
unavoidably produced an evil effect on the public mind. 

The anti-prohibitionists assailed prohibition as an invasion 
of personal liberty; and the prohibitionists, instead of denying 
that to be a fact, practically admitted it, and endeavored to 
answer it by minimizing the value of personal liberty. I have 
seen prohibition orators deliberately, with tone and gesture as 
well as by their words, strive to bring personal liberty into dis¬ 
repute with their aduiences; and as the debate between the two 
factions continued, that outrageous habit was accentuated. I 


7 


must not, of course, be understood as meaning that all prohibi¬ 
tion speakers indulged in such speeches; for I cheerfully bear 
witness that the most intelligent of them did not. I endeavored 
most earnestly to persuade my friends from speaking after 
that manner, and tried to show them that they had a much 
better answer to the argument of their opponents. 

I could never agree with the anti-prohibitionists in thinking 
that prohibition invades the personal liberty of any citizen; 
because I do not think that any man has a right, either natural 
or political, to conduct a business which produces crime, disease, 
or pauperism, and I can not, therefore, think that in denying 
the right to manufacture and sell liquor, I was depriving any 
man of his liberty. The most ardent in their love of liberty 
should always understand the difference between liberty and 
license, and none will ever find it necessary to discredit the one 
in order to consistently oppose the other. The average poli¬ 
tician, however, does not care anything about the soundness of 
his arguments or about their ultimate effect, if he thinks they 
will produce the immediate results at which he aims; and they 
practiced their art of moulding sentiment so successfully that 
a majority of the prohibitionists came to resent every tribute 
to human liberty as a defense of the liquor traffic. 

Instead of fairly meeting the issue which we have raised, 
some of our unscrupulous opponents attempt to evade it by 
charging that the real purpose behind Paragraph 5 in the Fort 
Worth Declaration of Principles is to repeal some of our cor¬ 
poration laws and to emasculate others. That subterfuge can 
hardly deceive any intelligent man; because our demand is made 
in behalf of American citizens—men of flesh and blood—and 
not in behalf of corporations, which are mere creatures of the 
law, having no natural rights. Our complaint is against legis¬ 
lative interference with the personal habits, personal tastes, 
and the legitimate business of individuals. Our adversaries 
seem to think that every man should be compelled to live as 
the majority thinks he ought to live; but we hold that it is 
the inalienable right of every man to live as he desires to live, 
so long as he does not interfere with the rights of other men, 
and our firm purpose is to restore that right to the people of 
this great State. 


8 


A CRITICISM ANSWERED. 


“June 7th, 1921. 

“Hon. Joseph W. Bailey, 

Dallas, Texas. 

Dear Senator: 

As one approving condemnation by you and others of sabotage 
and curtailment of production in labor ranks, it is a shock to note 
in your June magazine advocacy of the destruction of cotton in 
your program for all to ‘burn a bale.' 

Will you please explain in next issue the difference between 
less cotton being worth more and possibly the similar view of 
labor of less work bringing more? 

Sincerely, 

F. G. Swanson.” 

The above letter was received at the office of The Demo¬ 
cratic Review in my absence, and I did not return until it was 
too late to answer it in the last issue. The writer is a repu¬ 
table gentleman, and what he says in criticism of my plan to 
relieve the cotton market is worthy of respectful consideration. 
Besides, I have no doubt that the same opinion which he has 
expressed is entertained by other readers of this magazine, and 
I hope to satisfy them as well as Mr. Swanson. I will preface 
what I have to say in that regard, however, with the statement 
that while I did not doubt when I wrote the other editorial, 
and I do not now doubt, that the plan I suggested is the only 
feasible method of reducing the cotton surplus so as to restore 
a fair price during the present year, I did not then hope, and 
I do not now hope, that it will be adopted; because it requires 
the co-operation of so many as to deter men from undertaking 
the execution of it. 

Mr. Swanson seems to think that my attitude on the union 
labor question is inconsistent with my plan for disposing of 
the surplus cotton, and others may agree with him; but I am 
unable to perceive that inconsistency. I have never denied 
that men who belong to the Unions have a right to dispose 
of their own services as they please, individually or collective¬ 
ly; and my opposition has always been directed against their 
denial of that right to other men. I believe that union men 
have a right to withdraw from any employment with which 
they are dissatisfied on account of wages or working conditions; 
but I do not believe that they have any right to interfere with 


9 


I 

other men who desire to accept the employment which they 
have abandoned. When they do the first they merely exercise 
their own right; but when they do the second they trespass 
upon the right of other men, and thus subject themselves to 
the criticism of every fair-minded man. 

I can see no possible similarity between sabotage and re¬ 
ducing the cotton surplus in the way which I have proposed. 
Sabotage destroys the property of other people, while under 
my plan of reducing the cotton surplus, no man would burn any 
cotton except his own. **The difference between less cotton 
being worth more and possibly the similar view of labor of 
less work bringing more” is not so perfectly plain as the dif¬ 
ference between sabotage, which inflicts a direct injury by one 
man to the property of other men, and burning cotton by the 
owners of it; but it becomes perfectly plain when we concen¬ 
trate our minds on it. Mr. Swanson's analogy would be com¬ 
plete if the unions insisted on less work in order to prevent 
the wages of labor from falling below the level of a decent 
living; but that is not, as we all know, the real purpose behind 
the demand for shorter hours. 

I would not, under ordinary conditions, advise any man to 
destroy even his own property; but the conditions which con¬ 
fronted us were not ordinary. We found ourselves with a 
surplus of more than 10,000,000 bales of cotton, in consequence 
of which the price had fallen below the cost of producing the 
cotton then on hand; and it was certain that this year's crop 
would sell below the cost of producing it, unless that surplus 
could be very greatly diminished. Nor was that the end; for 
such a surplus carried over, even if normal consumption were 
resumed, would injuriously affect the price of cotton for sev¬ 
eral years yet to come, thus entailing a loss on cotton farmers 
which it would be difficult to compute, and whatever tends to 
impoverish our farmers tends also to bring disaster to all of 
our people. Certainly that situation called for a remedy, if it 
was possible to find one which did not require us to violate 
sound moral or industrial practices. Does the plan I have 
proposed do that? I do not think it does. 

We do not need to look very far for precedents. When 
the manufacturers of any given commodity find that they have 


10 


over-supplied the market until the selling price has fallen below 
the cost of production, they either close their factory down 
completely or materially curtail their operation; and in doing 
either, their employees suffer a serious loss of wages. But no 
reasonable man insists that the owners of a factory shall con¬ 
tinue to over-supply the market, and still further reduce the 
price until they are forced into bankruptcy. Is there any im¬ 
portant difference between curtailing future production and 
destroying a part of past production? It may be said that in 
burning cotton which has been already produced we are de¬ 
stroying something which the world needs for its comfort; but 
my answer to that is that a large part—^perhaps 80 per cent— 
of the cotton which I propose to destroy, on account of its 
inferior grade, can not be utilized for making cloth, and, there¬ 
fore, in burning it we are destroying a baleful shadow rather 
than a useful substance. 

Some will ask how it can be true that such cotton can se¬ 
riously affect the market price; and my answer to that is that 
the Government includes all of that low grade cotton in esti¬ 
mating the supply on hand, with the inevitable result that 
its effect on the price is substantially the same as if its quality 
were such as to make it useful. If the Government reports 
classified cotton, and make it plain that four million bales of 
the supply in sight are not available for commercial uses, the 
existence of these four million bales of low grade cotton would 
affect the price of all cotton much less than it does now. But 
the Government reports do not classify the cotton on hand, and 
these 4,000,000 bales of very low grade cotton are included in 
the total without any comment on their quality. That being 
true, the only way in which we can escape their hurtful in¬ 
fluence on the price of all cotton is to consume them or to bum 
them; and, as we can have no reasonable expectation that they 
will be consumed, the only way in which to take them off of 
the market is to bum them. 

There was a time when at least half of that cotton could 
have been sold to Germany, whose people were badly in need 
of clothes, and as they were not able to buy good cotton which 
then commanded a high price, they would have cheerfully taken 


11 


inferior cotton at a price which they were able to pay; and 
that price would have been much above the present price of good 
cotton. But a perverse Administration then prevented all com¬ 
merce with Germany, and that opportunity was lost to us for¬ 
ever. With good cotton selling at the present price, no manu¬ 
facturer will buy very low grade cotton; and as very low grade 
cotton constantly deteriorates in quality, the longer we hold 
it the less chance we will have to sell it at any price. Of course, 
if good cotton were to advance to something like the price it 
reached in 1918 and 1919, manufacturers might be induced to 
buy this low grade cotton at some price; but good cotton can 
never advance even to half the price of 1918 and 1919 with 
such a surplus as must exist so long as this 4,000,000 bales of 
low grade cotton remains on the market. 

No matter which way we turn, that 4,000,000 bales of low 
grade cotton obstructs our return to prosperity, and the only 
plan of removing that obstruction, in my judgment, is to bum 
it. I understand the drastic nature of that plan as well as 
anybody, and I would never have proposed it if I could have 
devised any other plan which promised our people relief in any 
reasonable time. I sought some other way; but after thinking 
over the matter for months, I was not able to find it. I was 
under no delusion about it, and when I proposed my plan I was 
aware that the inclination of every mind would, at first, be to 
reject it; but I was also convinced that a careful study of the 
question would lead every thoughtful man to conclude that it 
was not possible to devise any other plan which would bring im¬ 
mediate relief to our section. I am still of that opinion, and 
so far as I know, the gentlemen who have objected to my plan 
have not yet ventured to offer us one which promises any de¬ 
sirable result. 


OIL POLITICS IN TEXAS 

A few years ago a bitter and relentless war was waged 
against a United States Senator from Texas upon the ground 
that he had helped to bring the Waters-Pierce Oil Company back 
into this State. A more unjust attack was never made on any 


12 



public man; for if everything charged against that Senator in 
the beginning had been true, it did not justify even a serious 
criticism of his conduct, either personally or politically. If he 
had been an attorney for the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, and 
as such had sought to compromise the case of the State against 
it, nothing more than a question of propriety could have arisen 
out of that circumstance; and yet malevolent politicians pre¬ 
tended to think that he had committed some great wrong 
against the people. But it is not the purpose of this editorial 
to review that old contest. Time is taking good care of that. 

Recent events, however, render it very pertinent to inquire 
why our State officials then exerted themselves so strenuously 
to outlaw the Waters-Pierce Oil Company because a majority 
of its stock was owned by the Standard Oil Company, and now 
permit several other corporations in which the Standard Oil 
Company owns a majority of the stock to transact business here 
unmolested. They may say that the Standard Oil Company is not 
now a trust; but that answer will not satisfy any man who is 
familiar with the oil industry of this country. The Standard 
Oil Company is as powerful today in all of the States as it 
ever was, and much more powerful in this State. I do not 
say that the corporations owned, in whole or in part, by the 
Standard Oil Company, are transacting business among us in 
violation of the law; but I do say that its concealed control of 
the Waters-Pierce Oil Company was no worse than its open 
control of other companies now operating in Texas. 

Many intelligent Texans now believe that the official hos¬ 
tility of this State towards the Standard Oil Company was 
merely pretended for political purposes; and certain facts seem 
to justify them in that belief. Let us briefly recall some of 
those facts. The celebrated suit against the Waters-Pierce Oil 
Company was based on the allegation that a majority of its 
stock was owned by the Standard Oil Company; but no suit was 
brought, at that time, against the Standard Oil Company itself, 
although it was then transacting business in Texas through, 
at least, two other companies. If the Attorney General did not 
know, when he instituted his suit against the Waters-Pierce 
Oil Company, that the Standard Oil Company was transacting 


13 


business here through other companies, he learned that fact 
before he had proceeded very far with his case against the 
Waters-Pierce Oil Company; because the testimony which he 
took in that case very plainly disclosed it. 

But notwithstanding the disclosure made by the testimony 
taken in the Waters-Pierce Oil Company case, the Attorney 
General did not sue the Standard Oil Company until after that 
same Texas Senator had told the Governor and the Attorney 
General to their teeth, in a public meeting at Dallas, that the 
Standard Oil Company was transacting business in Texas, and 
demanded that immediate action should be taken against it. 
After that episode, which created a sensation in political cir¬ 
cles, the Attorney General could no longer avoid bringing a suit 
against the Standard Oil Company; but the manner in which 
that suit was conducted, and the termination of it, exhibited 
a favoritism towards that company no less marked than the 
immunity which it had long enjoyed. A comparison between 
what was done in the two cases will be interesting. 

The Waters-Pierce Oil Company was sued and its Presi¬ 
dent was indicted; the Standard Oil Company was sued, but 
no officer of it was indicted. A judgment for more than $1,800,- 
000.00 was recovered against the Waters-Pierce Oil Company; 
but an agreed judgment for only $160,000.00 was accepted 
against the Standard Oil Company. That difference in the 
amount of the judgments can not be defended, and it is diffi¬ 
cult to properly characterize that discrimination when we know 
that the entire property of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company was 
worth less than $10,000,000.00, while the entire property of 
the Standard Oil Company was worth more than $600,000,000.00. 
But despite that great disparity in the assets of the two com¬ 
panies, the Attorney General of Texas, after recovering a judg¬ 
ment of more than $1,800,000.00 against the smaller company, 
accepted an agreed judgment for less than one-tenth of that 
amount against the larger company, though both had violated 
the same law. 

On first thought it might seem that as the Standard Oil 
Company owned practically two-thirds of the stock in the 
Waters-Pierce Oil Company, and was, therefore, compelled to 


14 


pay that proportion of the judgment against the latter com¬ 
pany, it was deemed fair to show it some leniency in the other 
case; but that explanation does not explain when all the facts 
are considered. The Waters-Pierce Oil Company was convicted 
because the Standard Oil Company owned a majority of its 
stock; and as the Standard Oil Company was the real offender, 
it should have been prosecuted as the principal offender. In 
other words, the larger judgment should have gone against the 
larger company under any circumstances, and particularly so 
since its stock ownership constituted the offense of the smaller 
company. 

It has been said by men who were in a position to know 
that the Standard Oil Company aided the State in prosecuting 
the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, and subsequent developments 
tend strongly to sustain that charge. It is now a matter of 
common knowledge that for several years prior to that time, 
H. C. Pierce and the managing officers of the Standard Oil Com¬ 
pany were at serious disagreement; and that disagreement 
finally culminated in a law suit, instituted by Pierce to prevent 
the Standard from controlling his company. It, therefore, fell 
in exactly with the plan of the Standard Oil Company to have 
the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, and not themselves, prosecuted 
as the principal offender; for in that way they could be re¬ 
venged on Pierce, and could easily recoup their part of the fine 
paid by the Waters-Pierce Oil Company by superseding it as 
the principal oil merchant of Texas. That is exactly what has 
happened. The Waters-Pierce Oil Company did not survive that 
prosecution; it paid the judgment against it; but terminated 
its corporate existence. On the other hand, the Standard Oil 
Company allowed its properties to be sold; had them bought in 
by a friendly interest; and they were the basis of the present 
Magnolia Petroleum Company, which has absorbed a large part 
of the business formerly done by the Waters-Pierce Oil Com¬ 
pany, thus receiving the entire profit where before they re¬ 
ceived only two-thirds. 

It is certain that the Standard Oil Company did not feel that 
it had been proceeded against with undue severity; for it af¬ 
terwards employed the Assistant Attorney General who was 


15 


most active in the case against it as one of its attorneys. That 
statement needs amplifications, and I am glad to amplify it. 
Jewell P. Lightfoot was the Assistant Attorney General to 
whom I have just referred, and he was called as a witness in 
the libel suit which the Hon. B. F. Looney brought against the 
Dallas News. When on the witness stand Mr. Lightfoot was 
asked if he was an attorney for the Standard Oil Company; 
but he refused to answer that question, and his deposition was, 
on motion, suppressed by the court for evasiveness. He was 
then examined a second time, and on this second examination 
he admitted, under oath, that he had been employed by the 
Standard Oil Company as an attorney. Nor is that all. The 
gentleman who purchased the Standard Oil Company's prop¬ 
erties when they were sold under the judgment against it, 
testified in the suit which Attorney General Looney brought 
against the Magnolia Petroleum Company that everything 
which was done about the purchase of those properties and 
their reorganization was done with the full knowledge and ap¬ 
proval of both Attorney General Davidson and Assistant At¬ 
torney General Lightfoot. 

Remembering the fury of the assault made by the politicians 
on that Texas Senator, it seems passing strange how little 
they now have to say about the Waters-Pierce Oil Company and 
the Standard Oil Company. The Standard Company is now 
openly doing business—big business—in Texas; it owns the 
Magnolia Petroleum Company, and is said to own a majority 
of the stock in the Humble Oil Company; the Pierce Oil Asso¬ 
ciation, of which H. C. Pierce is the principal owner, is not 
only selling oil in Texas, but it has established a refinery here; 
and the most reckless of those politicians do not dare to charge 
that “Bailey brought them back to Texas." The present Gov¬ 
ernor is an anti-Bailey man; the present Attorney General is 
an anti-Bailey man; and a majority of the present Legislature 
are anti-Bailey men. But with these anti-Bailey men in abso¬ 
lute control of the State, the Oil Companies, whose officers 
those politicians said it was a sin for Bailey even to know, seem 
now to be in high favor, or, at least, immune from attack. The 
people will understand all of this in time, and will despise the 


16 


hypocrisy which is so plainly manifested in the difference be¬ 
tween now and then ? 


A SPEECH 

The Hon. Martin Dies is one of the most brilliant men who 
has served as a Representative from Texas, or from any other 
State, in recent years. In his time he has made many speeches 
much more profound than the one we print below; but this 
one touches up the isms of the day in such delightful vein that 
we think it worth the while of our readers to print it. It was 
delvered at Baltimore, and printed in the Congressional Record 
at the request of the Hon. John N. Garner. 

Government Ownership 

Extension of remarks of Hon. John N Gamer, of Texas 
in the House of Representatives 
Tuesday, February 2, 1915 

MR. GARNER. Mr. Speaker, under the leave granted to me 
to extend my remarks in the Record I include a speech by Hon. 
Martin Dies before the Merchants and Manufacturers' Associa¬ 
tion at Baltimore recently. 

Washington, January 30. 

Hon Martin Dies in his recent speech before the Merchants 
and Manufacturers' Association in Baltimore took occasion to 
bitterly score the trend of events toward Government ownership. 
His remarks in full were as follows: 

''As fellow shareholders with me in this great enterprise called 
government, I venture to direct your attention to some of our 
joint affairs, or, in congressional parlance, to resolve the body 
into a committee of the whole for the consideration of the state 
of the Union. 

"I candidly confess that I am moved to this discussion by 
the hope that you may be brought to see certain public questions 
as I do, and thereby join me in furthering what I conceive to 
be the public good. 


17 



‘‘You are manufacturers and merchants of this great metrop¬ 
olis, but I have not the slightest doubt that your true interests 
as citizens of the United States are in perfect accord with the 
true interests of every farmer and laborer of the district which 
I have the honor to represent in Congresss. To my mind, ‘what 
is good for one bee is good for the whole hive.’ Men of large 
affairs and men of small affairs are essential complements to 
each other, and neither can long escape those general injuries 
which affect the others. 

“As an observant student of current affairs, I give it to you 
as my conviction that all classes of men, from the richest to 
the poorest, in all parts of the Union, are suffering and are 
about to suffer still more from an overproduction of laws. Not 
all these laws are being ground out at Washington. Almost 
every State legislature is working overtime grinding out legis¬ 
lative grist. 

Progressive Reformers are Flooding the Country 

“The Congress and the country are simply teeming with so- 
called progressive reformers. All of these uplifters are active; 
many of them are honest, and some of them are intelligent. They 
have learned that a taplespoonful of salts is good for constipa¬ 
tion, and from that perfectly rational premise they have ex¬ 
citedly jumped to the conclusion that a bushel of salts would 
render the entire human family ‘healthy, wealthy and wise.’ 
In their boiling imagination the horse that does not run away 
with the cart is balky, and the legislator who hesitates to de¬ 
stroy the ancient landmarks is a reactionary. They are to be 
found in every political party, and their schemes for abolishing 
poverty by law and hastening the millenium by statute are as 
numerous as the stars of the firmament. They seem determined 
to put the entire human family in plaster of Paris to prevent the 
breaking of bones and the spraining of tendons. 

“I wish I had the time to detail to you the complex and 
ramified dreams of this new school of thought, or, rather, 
thoughtlessness. 

“At the risk of tiring you I venture to point out one of their 
many obsessions, that of Government ownership. 


18 


‘They want the Government to own and operate everything 
from a Zebrula farm in Maryland to a railway system in Alaska. 
There are bills pending in Congress for Government ownership 
of coal mines, radium mines, farm houses, armor-plate factories, 
and other properties and activities too numerous to mention. 

Ownership Asked By Men On Every Side. 

“The former Postmaster General and the present one have 
recommended to Congress the Government ownership of tele¬ 
graph and telephone lines. The Secretary of the Navy has rec¬ 
ommended to Congress the Government ownership of oil wells 
and refineries. The Secretary of the Treasury has recommended 
the Government ownership of ships of commerce. And so on 
down the line until every reformer has been heard from and 
every industry and every human activity has been tendered to 
the capacious maw of common ownership. 

“If a business pays large dividends, like the oil business, we 
are told that the Government should enter the field. If it is a 
losing business, like railroading in Alaska, they say the Govern¬ 
ment should take it over. 

“Gentlement, we are no longer taking steps but strides in the 
direction of socialism. What is to be the effect of all this? 
How will business fare and how will taxpayers fare when Uncle 
Sam pays the men and manages the business of the country 
through politicians elected by the people? There need be no 
doubt if you will study Congress as the handler of pay rolls and 
the proprietor of business. Congress will do in the future as it 
has done in the past. It will go right on, from year to year, 
raising the pay of every employee of the Government that votes, 
voting new pensions, adding to the retirement list, and yielding 
to every organized demand that is made upon it. 

“I will give you a few concrete examples of what the country 
may expect when Congress becomes the paymaster of this new 
army of Government employees. 

Pension Roll Taken as Example. 

“Take as a starter the million-name pension roll of the Gov¬ 
ernment, which receives from Congress more money than the 


19 


standing army of any European nation in times of peace. Con¬ 
gress stands in such dread of the pension vote that it does 
not halt when they have been given all they demand, but com¬ 
placently hands over multimillions in excess of their demands. 
The country witnessed that spectacle in the case of the Sher¬ 
wood pension bill. 

'‘Then consider the case of the rural mail carriers, a smaller 
army than the pensioners, but no less valiant when a charge 
is ordered against the Treasury. The rural carriers began with 
a modest salary of $300 a year in 1896, and I believe Congress 
has added something to their pay every year until now they re¬ 
ceive $1,200 a year, with life and accident insurance thrown in. 
In his last report the Postmaster General requested authority 
from Congress to have the rural mails carried by contract at a 
saving of $17,000,000 annually, but Congress did not dare to do 
such a thing, for Congress is standing for re-election, and the 
carriers are a great political power. 

“Permit me to give you one other illustration. Our civil- 
service laws provide that when a civil-service employee ceases 
to be efficient his pay shall stop, but the departments at Wash¬ 
ington are crowded with men and women who are unable to 
earn their salaries. Why are they not dismissed? Because 
public opinion will not allow it. 

“So much for Uncle Sam as a paymaster. How does he per¬ 
form as a business manager? A single example will give you a 
clear insight into the generous old gentleman’s business sagacity. 
He is rich in timber resources; in fact, the most extensive 
owner of the stumpage in the world. This stumpage is being sold 
off from time to time, and one would suppose some part of the 
proceeds would find their way to the Treasury. Not so. The 
army of high-salaried employees of the Forestry Service do not 
take in enough from the sale of timber to pay their salaries, 
and Congress-taxes the people for the necessary millions to keep 
the business going. 

Other Cases Are Sure To Come. 

“There are other cases in point, and when we come to oper¬ 
ate the railroad in Alaska, the telephone lines, ship lines, and 
oil wells there will be yet other cases in point. 


20 


‘It is an old saying, but a true one, that everybody’s business 
is nobody’s business. Our Government is a large affair, and 
the idea prevails in all circles that this great and rich Govern¬ 
ment should be liberal with those who work for it. 

“The rural carrier makes twice as much as the farmer to 
whom he delivers the mail, with half the labor and less than 
half the investment. Upon that basis, what will the Govern¬ 
ment conductor in Alaska receive? 

“If Congress can not now resist the organized demand of the 
carriers, how will it be able to resist the organized demand of 
Government railway employees. Government sailors, and Gov¬ 
ernment telephone operators? If a rural carrier transporting 
the mails in safety along the country roads of Texas demands 
life insurance, what will be the demand of Government sailors, 
who brave the sea, and Government brakesmen, who face the 
bitter cold in frozen Alaska? How will Congress answer the 
demands of Government telephone operators? Ah, there will 
be eloquence for you The Congressman’s constituent who is 
a conductor and the Senator’s constituent who is a sailor will 
know how to get a job without being fit for it, a raise of salary 
without earning it, and a pension without deserving it. He 
will also find a way to stick on the pay roll long after he is 
able to stay on the job. 

What Ownership Will Call For. 

“Government ownership of one thing in one place calls for 
Government ownership of other things in other places. Of 
what use is a Government railroad in Alaska unless there is 
freight to haul; therefore the Government must develop the 
coal mines. Of what use are Government ships without cargoes; 
therefore the Government must assemble them. Of what use 
are Government oil wells and refineries without pipe lines; there¬ 
fore the Government must build them. Thus the activities 
of Government ownership breed like insects in the sun, and 
there is no place to stop short of socialism where the individual 
is lost in a mass of inertia and absolute government becomes 
the master of all. 

“I hold to the faith of the fathers that the government is 


21 


best which governs least. I v^ould leave the individual free 
and make the government his servant. I Would give all men 
an equal chance in the race of life, without hobbling the feet of 
energy to await the approach of sloth. 

''And that brings me to an important question which I wish 
to address to you. Indeed, if I had not wanted to propound this 
vital question to you I would not be here to-night. 

"What are you doing to combat these false doctrines ? 

"What steps have you taken, what steps are you taking, to 
arrest the frenzy of the times ? Are you doing your full duty as 
citizens of this free Government ? I have but hinted in the most 
general way at these evils which assault the very foundations of 
our institutions, but that hint is sufficient to put prudent men 
on notice, and having that notice, it becomes your duty to stop, 
look, and listen. 


What is The Remedy Needed? 

"Public opinion controls public men, and may I ask you with¬ 
out impertinence what you are doing to mold public questions? 
Have you taken pains to discuss that matter with your legisla¬ 
tors in the State and Nation? I grant that your business 
demands your best attention, but the responsibilities of sover¬ 
eignty are not to be neglected. 

"The air is thick with fallacy. From every Chautauqua plat¬ 
form paid orators thunder forth the heresies of socialism. You 
need not doze away and dream that the Wave will break. It is 
rolling on unchallenged from victory to victory, and there are 
none to oppose it. 

"Congress is not the leader, but the follower of public opinion. 
Congress follows the crowd that makes the most noise, and I 
stand before you to-night to tell you in the most solemn manner 
that it is your duty to make a noise against Government owner¬ 
ship, against socialism, against the untrained hands of theoret¬ 
ical statesmen who blindly tug at the pillars of the temple. 

"And may the God of nations save this Republic from the 
dead sea of socialism, and the fruit thereof, which turn to ashes 
on the lips.” 


22 


FERRASAL contains the same elements as the most 
famous European Health Waters. It is 
Nature’s Remedy for 

Head-aches Acute Indigestion 

Biliousness Torpid Liver 

Acid Stomach Weak Kidneys 

Constipation Auto-Intoxication 

FERRASAL eliminates the CAUSE thereby giving immediate 
and permanent relief. 

DON’T USE Calomel, Salts, Pills or Purgatives. 

FERRASAL is more effective without their harmful reactions. 

If your druggist doesn’t carry it, write to the 

CROWN REMEDY COMPANY 

DALLAS, TEXAS 

j FERRASAL 





An institution catering 
to the public. Known 
as the San Antonio 
home of all Texas. .*. 


PERCY TYRRELL. Manager 




























A Safe Investment 

When you build Quality should 
have preference over cost, be¬ 
cause the difference for high 
grade lumber is small compared 
with additional service rendered. 

Your local dealer can furnish 
“Kirby” stock of “Kirby quality” 
Ask him for 

Long and Short Leaf 

Yellow Pine 

{ Manufactured by 

Kirby Lumber Company 

KIRBY-BONNER 

LUMBER COMPANY 

SALES AGENTS :: HOUSTON, TEXAS 


o- 


Sheegog Printing Co., Dalla* 






















t* 


THE 

DEMOCRATIC 

REVIEW 

j------- 

Owned,"'Controlled, and Edited By 

JOSEPH W. BAILEY 

VOL. 1 AUGUST, 1921 No. 8 


O resist the further encroachment of the Fed¬ 
eral Government on the sovereignty of these 
States, and thus help to perpetuate this 
Republic as our Fathers established it; to 
oppose the further abridgment of j^fpdTjtal rights, 
and thus help to preserve for d^rselve^ and our 
posterity tlie inestimable blessir^js of^^vil liberty; 
to support our constitutions, both "State^ and Fed¬ 
eral, in all of their provisions, and thus h^p to 
limit the power of those who are chosen to govern 
us; to contend against the progressive paternalism 
which is rapidly reducing us to a state of govern¬ 
mental pupilage, and thus help to restore that self- 
control without which no people can ever be cap¬ 
able of self-government; to defend the right of pri¬ 
vate property, and tlius help to assure those who 
are industrious enough to work, and prudent 
enough to save, that they shall enjoy the fruits of 
their industry and their prudence; to combat 
Socialism in every form, and thus help to maintain 
an orderly government in our country,—are the 
principal purposes which this Magazine is intended 
to serve. 

















CONTENTS 


A Pernicious Bill. 

An Excellent Bill. 

An Instructive Speech. 
A Bit of History. 


Entered as second class matter, March 10, 1921, at the Post 
Office at Dallas, Texas, under the Act of 
March 3, 1879. 





THE 

DEMOCRATIC 

REVIEW 


Published Monthly^. Dallas, Texas. $1.50 Per Annum. 


We denounce the growing extravagance of the Government, 
Federal, State, and Municipal, as not only a useless waste of 
the wealth created by the labor of our people, but as the pro¬ 
lific mother of many governmental vices; and we demand a 
return to that simplicity and economy in our public affairs 
which our democratic fathers practiced in the most glorious 
era of this Repubilc. 

It is not necessary, of course, to consume any time in demon¬ 
strating that extravagance exists, and that it is growing, in 
every division of our Government, Federal, State, County, and 
Municipal; but it will be useful to emphasize the extent of it 
by some very simple comparisons, which I will confine to the 
Federal Government in order to avoid extending this editorial 
beyond all reasonable length. For the fiscal year next preceding 
the Civil War our expenditures were less than $62,000,000; for 
the fiscal year next preceding our entrance into the World’s War 
our expenditures were more than $1,000,000,000.00; and for the 
last fiscal year our expenditures exceeded $5,000,000,000.00. 
That enormous increase, as expressed in cold figures, must deeply 
impress every thoughtful man, but those figures do not convey 
the full significance of it. 

In 1859 one-third of our cotton crop would have more than 
paid the entire expenses of the Federal Government, but today 
our cotton crop, our corn crop, our wheat crop and our oat crop, 
all combined are not sufficient. Ponder that statement, if you 
please! The four great crops of the most intelligent and indus- 
rious people in the world consumed in supporting the Federal 
Government, leaving our State, County, and Municipal Govern- 


3 




ments to be supported out of our other resources. Nearly 
50,000,000 of our people are engaged in agricultural pui*suits, 
and yet the principal crops produced by their labor will not 
defray the expenses of a single division of our Government. Is 
it not time to call a halt ? 

Some men attempt to excuse this inexcusable increase in 
our public expenses by saying that the country has grown very 
much since 1859. That is true; but it does not justify any such 
increase in our expenditures as has occurred. Our population in 
1859 was over 30,000,000, and our population in 1920 was 
105,000,000. With less than four times as many people in 1920 
as we had in 1859, a corresponding increase in the public ex¬ 
penditures would have called for less than $220,000,000.00. 
That estimate is more than liberal: because certain charges 
must be met whether the population is large or small, and the 
expenses of our Government ought not to grow at the same rate 
as our population. I am v/illing, however, for present purposes, 
to waive that point and to accept the view that an increase in 
the population renders necessary a corresponding increase in 
governmental expenses. 

Reducing the totals already given to a per capita basis, we 
reach this result: The expenditures in 1859 amounted to about 
$2.00 per person; the expenditures in 1916 amounted to about 
$10.00 per person; and the expenditures in 1920 amounted to 
about $50,00 per person. The increase of $18.00 per person 
between 1859 and 1916 is utterly indefensible; and the increase 
of $40.00 between 1916 and 1920 is still more indefensible. It 
is true that a great war intervened during the latter period; but 
it was terminated in November, 1918, and this country was, in 
fact, if not in law, at peace with the world throughout the entire 
fiscal year which ended June 30, 1921. Interest on the war debt 
and a suitable provision for those who were disabled in our 
country’s service were, therefore, the only unavoidable increases 
in our national expense account; and the very fact that it was 
necessary to meet those new expenditures should have induced 
Congress to retrench in other directions. 

But instead of retrenching, wherever retrenchment was pos¬ 
sible, Congress pursued exactly the opposite course, and doubled 


4 


the appropriations for 1920 as compared with the appropriations 
for 1916, outside of the interest on our w^ar-debt and the money 
required for our disabled soldiers. A prudent business man who 
found himself confronted with a new and extraordinary expense 
which could not be avoided would have taken good care against 
incurring any additional expense which could be avoided. But 
our law-makers, I regret to say, during these last few years 
seem to despise the rules of business prudence as something 
which shop-keepers should heed, and which statesmen should 
ignore. They waste the public money like spendthrifts, and they 
tax everything betwixt earth and Heaven in order to raise more 
to be wasted in the same way. They are prodigal with the 
public money, but provident with their own. 

The expenditure of $1,000,000,000.00 in 1916 was an outrage 
on the American people, and the expenditure of more than 
$5,000,000,000.00 in 1920 can not be characterized in language 
which ought to printed in a reputable magazine. When the war 
was over, a Congress which was mindful of its duty to the people, 
and earnest in its desire to serve their best interest, would have 
repealed every law which required the expenditure of money 
for war purposes, and would have restored the country to a 
peace footing in that respect as well as in all others. The pro¬ 
cesses of the congressional mind on this question are incomphe- 
hensible to me. If Senators and Representatives did not, them¬ 
selves, suffer the pinch, they knew that their constituents 
were in the grip of hard times; and yet they refused to reduce 
the expenses of the Government, although its citizens were 
compelled to practice the most rigid economy. Why should the 
Government be dressed in fine linen, and fed on cake, while those 
who support it must wear plain clothes and eat coarse food? 

A people who enjoy the blessings of a free government should, 
of course, be willing to contribute out of their earnings whatever 
is necessary to maintain it; but at the same time those who 
determine the amount to be contributed should keep always in 
mind that the Goveniment is a consumer, and not a producer. 
The farmer who buys or rents land, and bestows his labor on 
it in the cultivation of crops, is producing wealth; the manu¬ 
facturer who purchases raw materials, and converts them into 


5 


finished products, adds to their value; the merchant who buys 
at wholesale, and sells to the consumer, performs the useful 
office of exchanging products, and thus encourages a greater 
production of wealth; but what the Government spends does 
not increase the wealth of our country, and certainly it is not 
wise to withdraw from our productive enterprises more than is 
necessary to maintain a non-productive agency like our govern¬ 
ment. 

If the money spent by a government could be provided without 
taxing the people, extravagance would, nevertheless, be a crime; 
because the waste of wealth involved in unnecessary expenditures 
is not the only—and, indeed, it is not the worst—result of mis¬ 
spending public money* Governmental extravagance breeds cor¬ 
ruption; and no extravagant government in all the history of 
the world has ever escaped becoming, in time, a corrupt govern¬ 
ment. I do not mean that it will make all legislators venal, for 
it will not do that; but the ignoble vice of bribe-taking is not 
the only dangerous form of corruption in a Republic. Extrava¬ 
gance is the prolific mother of other evils; it vitiates the public 
conscience, and leads to gross abuses of the taxing power. The 
Government has no right to collect money from the people for 
any purpose except to support itself, honestly and economically 
administered; but extravagance scorns that simple article of 
democratic faith, and spends as if there were no limit, either 
constitutional or moral, on the power of taxation. 

The misuse of Federal money has done more to seduce the 
States of this Union from a strict adherence to their rights than 
any other single influence. The “assistance appropriations,” as 
they are sometimes called, which the Federal Government has 
been making for the States in recent years, prepared the way 
for an extension of Federal power, exactly as wise men foresaw, 
in the beginning, that it would. Some Congressmen support 
those appropriations with the deliberate purpose of divorcing 
the people from the doctrine of State Rights, while others sup¬ 
port them because they are anxious to “do something for their 
districts” — not so much to relieve their constituents as to 
assist themselves in securing a re-election. But whether ac¬ 
tuated by one motive or by the other, the votes are the same in 


6 


their effect; and the truth, bluntly told, is that the politicians 
in Congress, through design or through ignorance, are bartering 
away the sovereignty of these States. 

We often hear men ask what the Federal Government does 
with the stupendous sum which it annually exacts from the 
people. The answer to that question is that a large part of it 
is spent in usurping functions which are not Federal, and another 
large part of it is wasted in executing functions which are 
Federal. More than half of the money the Government has col¬ 
lected during the last fifteen years has gone in one or the other 
of those two ways. So many expenditures of both kinds have 
been authorized that a bare list of them would make a book, and 
I can do no more in this editorial than illustrate them by an 
example of each kind. It is not easy, out of the vast number, 
to select the ones which will best seiwe that purpose; but I will 
use the appropriations which have been made for good roads 
to illustrate the first kind, and I will illustrate the second kind 
by relating a recent experience of my own. 

To build public roads in the several States is obviously not a 
function of the Federal Government, and can not be made such 
by the transparent subterfuge of calling State highways Fed¬ 
eral 'Tost Roads”; but Congress appropriates many millions 
every year for that work. Our Senators and Representatives 
seem to think that whatever money they can obtain from the 
Federal Treasury for the purpose of building roads is that much 
saved to their States. A more foolish notion never entered the 
brain of a man. The Federal Government has no money except 
such as it takes from the people; and a Federal appropriation for 
good roads simply means that each State will receive from the 
general treasury what its people have first paid into it, diminished 
by the cost of collection and disbursement. It may happen, of 
course, that some States will receive more than their people 
have paid in; but if so, then it must likewise happen that some 
States will receive less than their people have paid in, and money 
contributed by the people of some States will be used for build¬ 
ing roads in other States. 


7 


I am an earnest advocate of good roads, and I will cheerfully 
pay any tax necessary to provide them; but I insist that they 
shall be built by the States, without Federal aid or Federal in¬ 
terference. I will never agree that Texas shall help to pay for 
good roads in Maine, or that Maine shall help to pay for good 
roads in Texas; and much less will I ever agree that Texas must 
submit the “surveys, plans, specifications, estimates” of her 
roads to a Federal Secretary of Agriculture for his approval. 
To all of that, I am unalterably opposed; and I am still more op¬ 
posed to any law which declares our good roads to be “Post 
Roads,” for such a law confers jurisdiction over them on the 
Federal Government, and that jurisdiction will be exercised in 
due time, if the Nationalists remain in power. Every State 
should have the best roads which its people are able to pay for, 
and willing to build—neither better than that, nor 'worse than 
that—and those roads should be built according to State plans, 
and remain forever under State jurisdiction. That doctrine may 
not be very “progressive,” but it is thoroughly democratic. 

The experience which I shall relate to illustrate the uncon¬ 
scionable waste of money by the Federal Government in doing 
what it ought to do, made it plain to me that conditions are 
worse than I had ever supposed. I had known for many years 
that the Government spends much more in doing any given 
work than a corporation or an individual would spend in doing 
the same work, and I had also known that the increased cost is 
due to Governmental methods; but I did not fully understand 
the absurdity of those methods until I was brought into per¬ 
sonal contact with them in a claim case which I recently con¬ 
ducted for some of my clients before the War Department. A 
mere recital of the hearings and rehearings, the references and 
re-references, the decisions and the reversals, will provoke a 
disgust in the mind of every man who believes that the Govern¬ 
ment should pay what it justly owes to its citizens without unnec¬ 
essary delay. 

That case was first submitted to a Board composed of two 
army officers, and after hearing all of the witnesses they found 
for the claimants; that finding was reversed by the Appeal 
Section, on a question of law; it was then heard by the Assis- 


8 


tant Secretary of War, who decided it against us, and reported 
his decision to the Secretary of War for approv^. Declining 
to act in the matter until he could satisfy himself about the jus¬ 
tice of it, the Secretary of War went through the record with 
the most commendable thoroughness, and finally reversed the 
decision of the Assisant Secretary. Before taking that action, 
however, the Secretary, not being a lawyer, requested the opinion 
of the Attorney General on the legal question which the Appeal 
Section had decided against us, and that opinion being in our 
favor, made us an award. Thus this one case was decided four 
different time in the War Department—twice against us, and 
twice for us. 

The award was transmitted, in proper form, to the Finance 
Division of the War Department for payment; but before they 
would act on it, they required that the Board of Contract Ad¬ 
justment should submit to them what they called, ^^a supporting 
file.” That was done, and thereupon a Colonel Carmichael report¬ 
ed that the award could not be paid because no appropriation 
was available for that purpose. The papers were then sent, for 
a decision on the question of paying the award, to the War Di¬ 
vision of the General Accounting Office, where they were ex¬ 
amined first by a Mr. Tulloss, and then referred by him to an¬ 
other section of that division for review. They advised against 
the payment of the award, not for the same reason assigned 
by the Finance Division of the War Department, but for the 
entirely different reason that the claim had not been presented 
within the statutory time. 

From the War Division of the General Accounting Office the 
papers were sent to the Comptroller General, who referred them 
to a Mr. Goldze, who referred them to a Mr. McFarland. After he 
had, presumably, investigated the question, Mr. McFarland made 
a report to Mr. Goldze, who made a report, in turn, to the As¬ 
sistant Comptroller General, Mr. Ginn, who decided the question, 
subject to the approval of the Comptroller General; and the 
Comptroller General could not, of course, either approve or dis- 
opprove that decision, except as a matter of form, without care¬ 
fully considering the question involved. Thus, after the award 
had been made, seven different officials passed on the question 


9 


of whether or not it should be paid. We were not permitted to 
see the opinions expressed by all of those seven officials; but 
of those which we were permitted to see, no two of them agreed. 
Comment on such procedure is unnecessary. 

Including the lawyers who appeared for the Government 
before the Board, and the Assistant Secretary of War, twenty- 
one different public officials were concerned, at different times, 
in the settlement of this claim, for which no well managed cor¬ 
poration, or intelligent individual, would have thought it nec¬ 
essary to engage more than two men—one business man, and 
one lawyer. My experience was not different from that of 
others who deal with the Government. They all tell the same 
story; and it is small wonder that great expense results. I 
am fully convinced that the Federal Government could be ad¬ 
ministered to its own advantage, and still more to the advantage 
of its citizens, with one-fourth of the men it now employs; for 
it is inevitable that with so many men working on the same 
matter, none of them will do their work as it ought to be done. 
That is an infirmity of human nature, and manifests itself in 
private as well as in public employments, though it is greatly 
intensified in positions which depend on political influence, or 
in which the incumbent holds practically for life under the Civil 
Service Law. The corrective suggests itself. While Congress is 
looking about for ways and means to support the Government 
they should remember that economy is the best substitute for 
taxation, and reduce our public expenses by dismissing many 
thousands whose retention in office impairs rather than pro¬ 
motes the efficiency of our public service. 


A PERNICIOUS BILL 


Senator Wadsworth of New York is an able man, and a 
sincere patriot; but he has recently introduced a bill which 
would lead me, if I did not know him, to believe that he is neither. 
He proposes that officers of the regular army shall be per¬ 
mitted to accept civil appointments, which is a step in exactly 


10 




the wrong direction. If the United States does not need—and 
it does not—all of its army officers, our military establishments 
should be reduced to those who are needed. Why should the 
people of this country be taxed to pay the salary of any army 
officer while he is engaged in civil pursuit, and receiving in 
that more than men worthy as he is are able to earn? It is 
no answer to say that the Government desires to keep its officers 
where they can be called to the colors at any time; for that 
could be done though they had resigned from the army, or had 
been separated from it by a law reducing the number of officers. 
Those men accepted their education from the Government, and 
thus imposed upon themselves a special obligation to perform its 
military service whenever required to do so. 

I am free to say, however, that the question of a double 
salary is not my only objection to the proposed dispensation in 
behalf of the regular army officers. Every man who knows 
anything about those gentlemen knows that they are arbitrary 
and unreasonable in dealing with civilians on civil matters. They 
care absolutely nothing for the law, or the rights of an Ameri¬ 
can citizen. If a military bureau has decided any question, they 
adhere to that decision no matter how absurd it may be, and it 
is an absolute waste of breath to argue with them, either about 
the law or the justice of that question. That is a result of 
their military training, and while it may fit them for service in 
the army, it unfits them for the civil service of their country. 
Instead of introducing these army officers into our other of¬ 
fices, Senator Wadsworth can render his country a better service 
by taking every officer of the regular army, except the Adjutant 
General, out of the War Department, and sending them back 
to their camps and barracks. Their trade is to fight, and they 
must unlearn all of the lessons taught them by military dis¬ 
cipline before they are qualified to deal justly and intelligently 
with civil matters. 


AN EXCELLENT BILL. 


For more than a year all thoughtful men have realized that 
we could not expect an early return of prosperity unless we 


11 




can find a way to dispose of our surplus products, and they have 
also realized that conditions are such in the principal countries 
of Europe, where our best market exists, that we can not hope 
to sell there for cash. Our problem, therefore, was to devise 
some plan under which those people could buy from us on credit. 
Such a plan would benefit them as well as us; because it would 
enable manufacturers to obtain the raw materials necessary 
to set their people at work, and at the same time enable us to 
dispose of a surplus which is depressing our domestic prices. 
But the difficulty has been to provide a system of credits which 
would be safe, with a seasonable maturity. Many proposals 
had been formulated on that subject; but all of them have been 
objectionable in one respect or another. Some of them were 
paternalistic, and others impracticable. 

It remained for a Texas Congressman to prepare a feas¬ 
ible and an unobjectionable measure. That Texas Congressman 
is the Hon. J. P. Buchanan, and to those who know him, his ex¬ 
cellent work is no surprise; because he is both a sound Democrat 
and a sound thinker. Mr. Buchanan's bill is a very simple one, 
and will undoubtedly accomplish the purpose for which it was in¬ 
tended. It supplies no money out of the public Treasury to 
any corporation, firm, or individual; it utilizes governmental 
machinery already existing to ascertain the financial respon¬ 
sibility of intending purchasers in foreign countries; and amends 
the Federal Reserve banking law far enough to permit the use 
of foreign credits and securities received in certain transactions 
as banking collateral. It does not compel any bank to accept that 
collateral, but merely enables them to do so, and that will be suf¬ 
ficient. The beneficial effects of such a law will be apparent at 
once to our southern bankers who are carrying loans on cotton 
above its present price. 

If a group of foreign manufacturers desired to buy 100,000 
bales of cotton, but were not able to pay for it in cash, an 
official inquiry would be made into their solvency, and if it was 
found to be such that a credit could be prudently extended to 


12 


them, the transaction could be carried. The promissory notes, 
or accepted drafts, received in payment for that cotton could 
then be distributed to the banks which held the cotton as secur¬ 
ity, and they could in turn use those foreign notes or accepted 
drafts as collateral with the Regional Reserve Banks, thus con¬ 
verting what is now a very slow asset, involving, if liquidated, 
a certain loss, into currency. Those banks would be liable, of 
course, to the Regional Reserve Bank, if the foreign notes or 
accepted drafts were not paid; but, under the inquiry directed 
in Mr. Buchanan^s bill, there would be small risk in that regard. 
It is obvious that if our banks could utilize the cotton which 
they now carry as a means of increasing their cash on hand, 
it would enable them to accomodate their customers, and thus 
help to stimulate business in our section. 

But that is not all. By surrendering a part of the cotton they 
now hold as security for sale to foreign consumers, the banks 
of the South would increase the price of the cotton which they 
would still hold as security, thus better securing the balances 
which would still be due them. The only possible criticism of 
Mr. Buchanan’s bill is the time which it allows on those foreign 
credits; but that was absolutely necessary. As the foreign 
manufacturers are without cash to buy our cotton, they must be 
given the time in which to manufacture it, sell it, and collect on 
their sales; or otherwise they will not buy it, and if they bought 
it, they would be almost certain to default on the payment for 
it. We all recognize that paper with a year to mature is not, 
under ordinary circumstances, bankable paper; but our present 
circumstances are not ordinary, and can not be relieved by or¬ 
dinary means. 

In order that the readers of The Democratic Review may 
see for themselves how simple, and then judge for themselves 
how effective, Mr. Buchanan’s bill is, and will be, I herewith 
reproduce it in full. 


18 


67th CONGRESS, 1st SESSION. 

H. R. 8125. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
August 9, 1921. 

Mr. Buchanan introduced the following bill; which was referred 
to the Committee on Banking and Currency and 
ordered to be printed. 


A BILL 

To provide foreign credits for the purchase of products of essen¬ 
tial industries of the United States and to promote the 
foreign commerce thereof, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That 
the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce, are 
constituted a commission, to be known as the Commission on 
Foreign Credits, with the duties and powers as hereinafter 
prescribed. 

Upon the written request of any domestic corporation, as¬ 
sociation, firm, or person having sold, or proposing to sell, the 
products of any essential industry in this country to any foreign 
Government, corporation, association, firm, or person, or upon 
the written request of any foreign Government, corporation, 
association, firm or person having purchased or desiring to pur¬ 
chase the products of any essential industry in this country on 
a credit, it shall be the duty of the commission constituted by 
this Act to make diligent inquiry into the financial condition 
of such foreign purchaser and all securities offered as a basis 
for credit, and if found to be such that the credit may be prud¬ 
ently extended shall certify that fact to the Federal Reserve 
Board; and thereupon negotiable promissory note or notes and 
accepted draft or drafts evidencing that indebtedness and ma¬ 
turing within one year from the date thereof shall become 
eligible as collateral with the regional reserve banks of the 
United States, and said banks are hereby authorized to discount 


14 



the note or notes of a member bank secured by such collateral. 

The several Secretaries above designated shall have the 
power to direct any of their appointees in foreign countries to 
obtain such information for the use of the commission as will 
better enable it to perform the duty herein imposed on it; 
and an appropriation of $50,000 is hereby authorized for the 
employment by said board of such expert and clerical assistance 
as may be necessary in the execution of this Act. 

The Commission of Foreign Credits herein created shall have 
the power to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the 
purpose of this Act. 


AN INSTRUCTIVE SPEECH 

In defending the right of the people to be secure in their per¬ 
sons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches 
and seizures. Senator Ashurst recently delivered an address in 
which he traced the history of the Fourth Amendment to the 
Constitution, and it is a history with which the people of this 
country should be familiar. The Arizona Senator is one of the 
most ardent prohibitionists in the Senate, and he can not be just¬ 
ly charged with speaking out of a desire to protect those who 
engage in an illicit liquor traffic. The speech was as follows: 

Mr. ASHURST. Mr. President, at the risk of tediousness 
and realizing that possibly I ought not to take time from the 
roads bill I am going briefly to sketoh the history of the fourth 
and fifth amendments to the Constitution, as there is a large 
attendance in the Senate. It is almost presumptuous, however, 
in the Senate of the United States to do that, as most Senators 
are familiar with that history. 

A gentleman the other day calling upon me asked, “Did 
you ever read Lord Coke’s famous maxim in Lemayne’s case,” 
to wit, “The house of every man is to him as his castle and 
fortress, as well for his defense against injury and violence as 
for his repose?” I said, “Yes; I am familiar with Coke, but 
that was law 1,000 years before my Lord Coke adorned the 
bench.” 

Mr. Pi-esident, before the English conquest of Britain the 
English people lived in a country now called Schleswick, a 
district in the heart of the peninsula that separates the Baltic 
from the northern seas. The dwellers in this particular locality 
were an outlying fragment of what was called the Engle or 
English folk, the bulk of whom probably lay in what was later 
called Lower Hanover and Eastphalia and Westphalia. These 
Engles in the heart of this peninsula set up their forms of 


15 



government; they met in the forests, and with their loud and 
gutteral yeas and nays and sometimes by clashing their spears 
against their shields as substitute for viva voce vote they 
adopted a code of laws. 

One of the principles they set into positive law and adopted 
before Hengist and Horsa landed on the island of Thanet in 
A. D. 449 was the constitutional provision that “a man’s house 
was his castle,” and that he was and ought to be secure and 
free therein from unreasonable searches and seizures. So we 
perceive that when the Angles came over from Jutland under 
the leadership of Hengist and Horsa and landed on the island 
of Thanet they brought with them those English fundamentals 
as to the liberty of the citizen or subject and they planted them 
deep and strong in the island of Britain. 

When w’e talk, therefore, of English history we must remem¬ 
ber that English history begins with the landing of Hengist’s 
war band in the year I have above mentioned. These war¬ 
riors under the leadership of Hengist and Horsa, these sons of 
liberty, were drawn somewhat from the Jutes, as well as the 
Angles. When English history began, therefore, there was 
already established freedom from unreasonable seizures and 
searches. The years glided into the centuries and this pro¬ 
vision, amonst many others guaranteeing personal freedom 
from the encroachments of tyranny, was observed by practically 
all reigning monarchs until King John so outraged and violated 
the laws and constitution of his country that there occured his 
famous quarrel with his barons and he took refuge on one bank 
of a little stream called Runnymede; with himself on one side of 
the stream and his barons on the other they framed a treaty 
or charter known to history as Magna Charta, signed by King 
John, June 15, 1215, on a small island in the middle of the 
stream. This same John once received some excellent advice 
at the tournament at Ashby, for he had in his train a man 
who never flattered him; a man of good sense, named Walde- 
mar Fitzurse. The day that the disinherited knight first tilted. 
King John attempted to carry out his own sweet will on a cer¬ 
tain subject in a manner that would prove ruinious; whereupon 
Waldemar Fitzurse said, ‘Tf Your Grace attempts it, it can but 
prove ruinous to your projects.” John replied, “I entertained 
you, sir, for my follower, but not for my counselor.” Where¬ 
upon Waldemar gave John advice that all of high station 
could well afford to consider when he said, “Those who fol¬ 
low Your Grace in the paths you tread, acquire the right of 
counselors, for your interests and saftey are not more deeply 
pledged than our own.” 

But say the pundits and the scholars, Magna Charta says 
nothing about freedom from unreasonable seizure and search; 
Magna Charta says nothing about requiring warrants to be 
issued before a citizen is stopped on the highway and his 
baggage examined and his pockets searched. Let us examine 
this statement and see how much thereof is true. 

I can read but little Latin but I can read English; the origi¬ 
nal and individual articles of Magna Charta, as they were pre¬ 
pared and offered seriatim, were written in Latin, but when the 
entire Charta was adopted and engrossed and was ready for the 


16 


King’s signature, it was written in Norman-French, and we must 
read it in the light of what its words meant 706 years ago. 

I will ask Senators to bear with me while I read paragraph 
24 . of Magna Chart. 

“No sheriff, constable, coroner, or other of our bailiffs shall 
hold ‘Pleas of the Crown.’ ” 

We must view that language in the light of what it then 
meant, and it meant at that time that sheriffs and coroners and 
constables, bailiffs, and King’s minions had been in the habit of 
going to the thatched cottage of the peasant and to the castle 
of the baron, and there these officers and King’s minions would 
invade that cottage or castle and hold court; these officers and 
minions would command that the householder open the strong 
box, the larder, or the pantry; they would demand that he open 
the chest in which he kept his relics, his heirlooms, his private 
papers, and his title deeds and muniments showing his right to 
possession to his lands; the penalties which these officers, 
sheriffs, bailiffs, and King’s minions inflicted were degrading 
and painful and were contrary to law. 

Section 24 of Magna Charta denounced that conduct, and the 
King agreed that his sheriffs and constables and coroners should 
never thereafter hold court. 

Some years after the granting of the great charta a doubt 
arose as to the precise meaning of some of its sections, although 
it was pointed out by the lawyers of the day—and the only 
lawyers of that day were ecclesiasts—that the guaranties in 
Magna Charta were sufficient to secure the liberty of freemen; 
nevertheless, in the reign of Edward I, in 1297, the Confirmatio 
Chartarum was promulgated. I will read a comment thereon 
from John Fiske’s Civil Government in the United States: 

“The words of this important document, from Prof. Stubb’s 
translation, are given as the best explanation of the constitu¬ 
tional position and importance of the charters of John and Henry 
III. * * * This is far the most important of the numerous 
ratifications of the great charter. Hallam calls it ‘that famous 
statute, inadequately denominated the confirmation of the char¬ 
ters, because it added another pillar to our constitution, not 
less important than the great charter itself.’ It solemnly con¬ 
firmed the two charters, the Charter of the Forest (issued by 
Henry II in 1217; see text in Stubbs, p. 338), being then con¬ 
sidered as of equal importance with Magna Charta itself, estab¬ 
lishing them in all points as the law of the land; but it did 
more. ‘Hitherto the king’s prerogative of levying money by 
name of tallage or prise from his towns and tenants in demesne 
had passed unquestioned. Some impositions, that especially on 
the export of wool, affected all the king’s subjects. It was now 
the moment to enfranchise the people and give the security to 
private property which Magna Charta had given to personal 
liberty.’ ” 

The Great Charter signed in 1215 and the Confirmatio Char¬ 
tarum which was signed in 1297 are in pari materia and must 
be read together; the one dealt particularly with the citizen’s 
personal liberty and the other dealt especially with his property 
rights. No man since that time has succeeded in the English- 
speaking world, or wherever it has been pretended there was a 


17 


government of law instead of men, in questioning the rights of 
freemen set out in these two documents. 

The leading English case on this subject is that of Entick 
versus Carrington and Three Other King’s Messengers, reported 
at length in Howell’s State Trials. In this case, as it is re¬ 
ported in Howell’s State Trials, officers of the law had broken in 
and seized books and papers belonging to the plaintiff under 
color of a warrant issued by the secretary of State. Action 
was brought for trespass against the officers making the seizure. 
The defendants attempted to justify under the warrant. It 
was conceded that such warrants had been issued for many 
years and executed without question. The case was argued be¬ 
fore a full bench, and Lord Camden, at the Michaelmas term 
in 1765, delivered the decision holding that such seizure could 
not be justified except by a warrant issued by a court upon 
proper proof, and that even on a warrant issued by the secre¬ 
tary of state it was utterly in violation of the English common 
law. 

This was therefore the law of England when our Federal 
convention met in 1787 to form the Constitution of the United 
States. 

It is common knowledge that the framers of the Federal Con¬ 
stitution encountered many practical difficulties in writing a 
Constitution that would be acceptable to the majority of the 
Colonies. Hence it was widely believed that amendments would 
frequently be resorted to as time and march of events required. 
Virginia, along with 'New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsyl¬ 
vania, at that time was a pivotal State, and when the Federal 
Constitution was considered at the Virginia convention called 
to pass upon ratification of the Federal Constitution that eagle 
of oratory, that premier of statesmen, Parick Henry, was in 
the Virginia convention, and he challenged Washington’s views; 
he challenged James Madison, he of the superb intellect; he 
challenged the Wythes, the Pendletons, and the Innesses, and 
all that splendid galaxy of scholarship and statesmanship that 
enriches the annals not only of Virginia but of the world, and 
he demanded to know why a Bill of Rights guaranteeing the 
privileges and immunities of the citizen had been omitted from 
the Federal Constitution. The Virginia State Convention, after 
a prolonged debate, was only able to ratify the Constitution by 
a majority of 10 votes, so ably did Patrick Henry argue against 
it because it did not contain the Bill of Rights which English¬ 
men brought over from Jutland to the island of Thanet in 449, 
which they affirmed in 1215, in 1279, and in 1689, and which Lord 
Camden declared so eloquently. 

James Madison pledged his word that at the earliest oppor¬ 
tunity he would use his great intellect and his energy toward 
immediately placing into the Federal Constitution the requisite 
amendments guaranteeing the citizens’ rights, and as soon as 
the Virginia convention had finished the work of ratification it 
adopted resolutions expressing its desire for the amendments 
demanded by Patrick Henry. Tliese resolutions were for¬ 
warded to the governors of the various States, and as far as 
men could be bound in faith and honor, as far as men could be 


18 


bound in statesmanship and in politics the amendments guar¬ 
anteeing the citizen’s individual rights and his liberties were 
by common consent agreed to, and it was understood everywhere 
that these amendments would be proposed to the States by the 
first Congress. 

The first bill to be considered by the newly organized Con¬ 
gress of the United States, of course, was a bill to raise revenue 
to get something into the Treasury to pay the expenses of the 
Government; but on July 21 James Madison, who was a mem¬ 
ber of the House,arose and asked that these amendments be 
considered. Why, it will be asked, was not this superb intel¬ 
lect sent to the Senate? The reason it that he had voted to 
ratify the Constitution without the Bill of Rights, and Patrick 
Henry resorted to the unusual circumstance of bringing out two 
candidates for the Senate against Mr. Madison, to wit, Mr. 
Grayson and Richard Henry Lee; thus Madison was defeated 
for the Senate because he did not stand for the Bill of Rights; 
but he came to the House of Representatives, and on the 21st 
day of July, 1789, he arose and “begged the House to indulge 
him in further consideration of amendments to the Constitu¬ 
tion,” and he pointed out that the faith and honor of Congress 
were pledged; that the faith and honor of public men every¬ 
where were pledged to amendments securing to the citizens 
such guaranties as were comprehended within the first 10 
amendments. 

Twelve amendments were proposed to the States, and 10 
of them were ratified within 2 years and 15 days. There¬ 
after, so far as Americans are concerned, and so far as 
the instruments itself is concerned, they were and are a part 
and parcel of the original Constitution, as much so as if they 
were signed on the 17th of September, 1787, when the main 
instrument itself was signed. 

It has been asserted from time to time that if there be 
a desperate case the citizen may be searched without a war¬ 
rant, his pockets explored, his carriage stopped. Mr. President, 
we are not justified in looking to the mischief; we are not justi¬ 
fied in looking to the end to be accomplished; we are sworn 
to uphold the Constitution. If there be amendments which 
the common people understand, they are the fourth and fifth 
amendments. We require no lawyer to tell us what these two 
amendments mean; they are plain; there has been less ligita- 
tion over the fourth and fifth amendments than over any other 
amendment, because anyone can understand them who can 
read or will try to comprehend language. It is so plain that, as 
I said a few moments ago, he who runs may read. As the 
learned Senator from Connecticut said, in the case of Boyd 
versus the United States (116 U. S., 61b), the opinion by Mr. 
Justice Bradley reviewed Lord Camden’s opinion. He gave a 
history of the fourth and fifth amendments. I will read the 
syllabus only, not tiring the Senate with the decision, but will 
ask unanimous consent to include the entire decision in the 
Record as an appendix to my remarks. 

The presiding officer. Without objection, it is so ordered. 


19 


A BIT OF HISTORY 


The Hon. V. W. Grubbs, a distinguished citizen of Texas, has 
recently written an interesting letter in which he tells about the 
first nomination of Roger Q. Mills for Congress. As Col. Mills 
once occupied a large place in the politics of Texas and rendered 
conspicuous public service, whatever concerns his political career 
must always be a matter of interest to our people. I, therefore, 
reproduce the letter of Judge Grubbs. 


The State Democratic Convention, held at Corsicana in the 
summer of 1872, besides instructing for Horace Greeley for 
the presidency, nominated Roger Q. Mills and A. H. Nillie for 
Congressmen at Large. 

Whatever may have been the aspirations of Colonel Mills 
previous to the ballot which resulted in his unexpected nomina¬ 
tion over Ex-Governor Throckmorton up to that time he had 
not been considered by the leaders as a serious congressional 
possibility. Governor Throckmorton led the field by a good 
majority but opposing influences with which the chairman of the 
convention. Judge John H. Reagan, was alleged to be in sym¬ 
pathy, prevented him from going over the top with the re¬ 
quired two-thirds majority. Several opposing candidates had 
been trotted out, but failing to develop any great strength, they 
more or less gracefully withdrew from the contest. 

Late in the third day of the convention Colonel Mills’ name 
was placed before the convention by one of his Consicana ad¬ 
mirers. However, he was not unanimously supported by the 
Consicana contingent. A leading member of the local bar, widely 
known in the State, was against him. This, I was informed, 
had rather strengthened than detracted from the chances of 
the Corsicana man. The ballot was taken just before the evening 
recess. No doubt, for the purpose of giving expression to the 
gratitude of the delegates to the people of Corsicana for their 
courteous treatment during the convention, but with no thought 
of giving their idol the congressional nomination, several 
of the delegations cast what they intended to be a complimentary 
vote for Colonel Mills. At the close of the ballot it was an¬ 
nounced that there was no nomination, although Mills appeared 
to have very nearly two-thirds of the votes cast over his 
more distinguished opponent. On the reassembling of the con- 


20 



vention after the recess the chairman announced that a mistake 
had been made in counting the ballots and that Roger Q Mills 
had in fact received the nomination by a fraction of a vote. 
Though not a delegate to the convention, I sat with the Kauf¬ 
man County delegation, which at the instance of the late Z. T. 
(Rough) Adams, who had studied law in the office of the firm 
of Mills & Halbert, but who was really a Throckmorton sup¬ 
porter, had cast what they intended to be a complimentary vote 
but which unexpectedly gave the nomination to Colonel Mills. 
Some of Throckmorton’s friends were uncharitable enough to 
charge the result to Judge Reagan because of the rivalry ex¬ 
isting between them and which in after years brought about 
the election of General Sam Bell Maxey to the United States 
Senate as a dark horse or compromise candidate. 

V. W. GRUBBS. 

Riverside, California, August 12, 1921. 




FERRASAL contains the same elements as the most 
famous European Health Waters. It is 
Nature’s Remedy for 

Head^aches Acute Indigestion 

Biliousness Torpid Liver 

Acid Stomach Weak Kidneys ^ 

Constipation Auto-Intoxication 

FERRASAL eliminates the CAUSE thereby giving immediate 
and permanent relief. 

DON’T USE Calomel, Salts, Pills or Purgatives. 

FERRASAL is more effective without their harmful reactions. 

If your druggist doesn’t carry it, write to the 

CROWN REMEDY COMPANY 

DALLAS, TEXAS 


t 

I 


I 


FERRASAL 






I 

I 




(Bmtn ^aUi 


An institution catering 
to the public. Known 
as the San Antonio 
home of all Texas* .*• 


PERCY TYRRELL. Manager 


' ‘I*-f ‘fi Lf Yt fi l l #144-4- 


















Assets Over Ten Million Dollars 


Great 

Southern Life Insurance 
Company 

Houston Dallas 

‘'Texas’ Hundred Million Dollar Company” 


Annual Statement 


December 31, 1920 


ADMITTED ASSETS 


First Mortgage Loans.$5,929,277.39 

Real Estate . 395,426.64 

Policy Loans (within reserve) 1,733,607.61 

Liberty Bonds . 887,050.00 

Other Bonds . 270,000.00 

Cash on Deposit.-. 657,238.49 

All Other Assets. 475,909.49 


TOTAL.$10,348,509.62 


LIABILITIES 

Policy Reserves and all other 

Liabilities .$9,584,510.39 

Surplus to Policyholders in¬ 
cluding Capital Stock, 

$600,000.00 . 763,999.23 


TOTAL.$10,348,509.62 


Insurance in Force - - - $105,573,682.00 


Has Never Issued a Policy with 
Double Indemnity 
Premium Reduction 
Coupons 
Group Insurance 

(No Frills or Trimmings) 


Issues Only 

Plain Simple Contracts 

Full Reserve Values (Cash, Paid- 

up or Extended Insurance.) 

Full Total Disability Benefits 
Monthly Income Payments to Ben¬ 
eficiaries ia;,all Approved Forms. 


We Offer No Inducements to Agents Except Prompt 
Service and Fair Treatment. 


O. S. CARLTON - - - - President E. P. GREENWOOD - Vice-President 
Houston Dallas 


Insurance in Force Over One Hundred Million Dollars 





































A Safe Investment 

When you build Quality should 
have preference over cost, be¬ 
cause the difference for high 
grade lumber is small compared j 
with additional service rendered. | 

Your local dealer can furnish 
“Kirby” stock of “Kirby quality” 

Ask him for t 

Long and Short Leaf 

Yellow Pine 

Manufactured by J 

Kirby Lumber Company 


KIRBY-BONNER 

LUMBER COMPANY 

SALES AGENTS HOUSTON. TEXAS 

0.;;.Ja27 


Sheegog Printing Co.. Dsilae 
































t 


.» < 


4 



4 































I 

y 


I 





I 


i 


4 


• If 



"%> 

I 



T 


i I 




I • 

• T 








i 


I 


il-' 










d^ fc *^ 0 ® *** ''** 0 -* ^ 


• * ■ 


«-l<^ • 


■J#- '••°' A” ^ ‘..■.* a'*- *?!. '•V»* «0 

<^6 aO’^ .•••- *> O’ .•••<^ ^ « 

*' \f -*&'• :*^'* * 

4 '»!v^C}^ ♦ #1^ • 






' ° 

..■. '-Ca "■ 4 '' a'C^ '. ..* 

j*» •1(4:^ *♦ ^ /•d^ fc* JJI^ 0®**# V. -»■••* 

^ 4 ^ *aF/fT/P>»‘* V *• /*♦*_ - 

’V “^ 0 * .'/ 

o l,Ov% 4 0. • 

*'' ''’ --- ’ 4 ° ^ *..'• °«.'♦•T'o’ ., 0 ’' t 

0 ^ **•«>- 4 N *••, ^ I 



» 

* C^ o 

♦ A? TA - 

♦ * 




, i. »^<i^-^,* -h'' - *'vu\\Nsss. > . 

V A' • • '#^ * * * A® *•»■•♦ 

> \j -. • . ^ . /TV rvV . . ^ ^ 

« ■: *W^’«W 4 

'‘.-‘Jj:* 'o, _'^rf_*“--‘^<' ... 



la"* »id??tvvl* ■*#* cO o, 

.N « «?C^VW%.« nr. V * OPj/fT^hfr.^ v5 » 



• ry 
• ^0^ • 



^ 0 ® " • ♦ 

XT/ * r.c* 5 ^tv ^ I 

OK ."‘'^ila*. •^^ 0 * 


• o’ it* <lK 

4 ° ^ "’ .K 

I -**o- .••• 


^ -ww.' V 

, '-<- ■••• f" i^.**"’**\K i?fc*'*..* 

^.a a4’ ►*«•■;'. ^0’ 

tl -*^m' 

.•" -NiS?'* it- -K if. 4 K 4 ^ 

* A o ® * ® ♦ ^ a aK , V * • ^ ^ • • • -0 

K • • «A (V . -• o «• « «.•* <>» A' 




o • t 


'ia 




'oK 




♦ <C^ 

* /.K 




V ■* <• aP* ■4 0 • 

®r <> <y *••, «A ^ •''" -d^ ^ ♦•To® .0*' ^ 

< 4 '^ a'/tdi^' »* 4 .‘J'* a''' ^ -••• 

• ^l^ t .- Siiife :- 

*'o 4 ^’^.v.. %.'”'** av'^ . v''^^ % 

/,,'’ % /T -.^r.-. ^°it. ,4^"- 

. ^ > °-^^** 0 ’’’'^ V 

/ '‘'^tev' i-'-a > -i-^ -i^l' fO^ .-‘jj* i> 4< 

^0^ ^oV 

* Q ( Av^fJ * W 

x**' o_ '>''S^.° . 0 ^ ''■yizfm* c^ '"^ 


‘c 




tA 


1.0 Vi 


% " •• A^ ^o rP ^ 

'T V^ • * vx_ * M. C* ri* « * a rfci * »o .0 

o ^ ^ ♦***'♦ «*o 




!** 4 '^'''^. "•^S^** 4 ^^'*^ ❖'’if. ' 

O' 4*_‘JJL*- *’* V*. A<'' '*•* ^ 


* < 0 ^ ^o • 






"'• o 




• 


|HL«/ nr 



- o , i - ry 





- • c.^V 

^ '%* 4>y ^ « 4 

<> .Cr ‘'o,. * ^ 

% \ (P yJj^^ °o 



rj^ - '■T^y/iu^ '* ^ ^ 

A® ^ ^ •’•-* A® 



a"^ ► 

tr 

** A V-^ a ’ 

.> < 0 ^ 



^ ♦.!^' 4 - '<^ <0 » 

• /S^aui^k r • 



• aV’^ - 

* ‘fp % • 


\y ^ * • no* ^0' 

^.jfraau. n 

*■ ^ V ' * 





fO^ ♦•‘■'-V "*© 

V •» 


•' If 'y * 

^ •'o . * • /w 

'^ov^ : 

♦' K^ °'^ ’ 

. %.’v<*'^ .-^^v 

. A'' :S^' 

♦ ^ ^ 


• aV'<^ j 

* -4^ % •. 




« 

« 

• * <0 

fQ 

• >3r^ V « 

• A * 

> .<y ^ • 

• • *<*’■" "^ *'• • ‘ * * a'^ <* .0*' "^ *'^** * * <'■ 








, *. 

*^V _ •'mJi\\VV>r> » ^ " ■'Jt^ -2L^X//V^*. K* ^ «'&Al\\XXrW> • _ » 

"■ AV 

. __. <?. a 9 ‘ •i*i'. '^'?’ V' .•irfj/* '«i. jP'^ * 1 * - - 

.-4- .yss^. :^K' 

^ •’c • * • A <. ^^TTT* . 0 ^ ^ • * * v^ <0 




aV V aO • 

..K\V/k*. «4. A«- »^i8a* » 



i- '^A^ 



r%* A^ cv v^ 

k aV O . ♦ 



/ ^ % '. 
aV o®***-* ^ 

j'V ^ f,'' J 





^ > V^ O^ aO^ »!•*.?- *' 






DOBBS BROS. INC.**' <^ ♦J 

”8 «:- jf ; 

ST. AUGUSTINE x ^ ^ ^ ^ 

’ ■ .t^' C°‘\‘i^’ ’^o j-4.'^ .“.^t^ '0 


• • 

































































































































































































































